Who Knocked Custer Off His Horse? Unpacking the Mystery of the Last Stand

Who Knocked Custer Off His Horse? Unpacking the Mystery of the Last Stand

It's a question that has echoed through American history, a persistent whisper in the grand narrative of the Wild West: who knocked Custer off his horse? The image is iconic, burned into our collective memory – Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, the flamboyant cavalry commander, toppling from his mount amidst the chaos of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Yet, the stark reality is that no single individual can definitively claim the title of "the one who knocked Custer off his horse." The truth, as is often the case with history's most dramatic moments, is far more complex and shrouded in the smoke and confusion of battle. This isn't a simple case of a lone warrior achieving a singular feat; rather, it's a reflection of the brutal, overwhelming force of the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors who were fighting for their lives and their way of life. Custer’s fall, and indeed his death, was a consequence of a coordinated, ferocious assault by hundreds, if not thousands, of warriors. While we may never pinpoint a specific individual responsible for that precise moment, understanding the dynamics of the battle provides a far more profound answer to who ultimately sealed Custer's fate and that of his command.

The Enigma of Custer's Demise

For generations, this query has captivated historians, amateur enthusiasts, and anyone drawn to the dramatic sagas of the American frontier. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, fought on June 25-26, 1876, remains one of the most studied and debated military engagements in U.S. history. It was a pivotal moment in the Plains Indian Wars, a stunning defeat for the U.S. Army, and a Pyrrhic victory for the Native American tribes involved. The legend of Custer's "Last Stand" has been immortalized in countless books, paintings, and films, often portraying him as a heroic, albeit doomed, figure. But behind the myth lies a brutal reality, and the question of who knocked Custer off his horse serves as a gateway into exploring that reality. Did a specific warrior fell him? Was it a stray bullet? Did he fall in the initial fighting, or was he killed later? The answers, or rather the lack thereof, tell us a great deal about the nature of the battle itself and the challenges of reconstructing events from such a chaotic and violent encounter.

Initial Engagements and the Fracturing of Custer's Command

To truly understand how Custer met his end, we must first consider the strategic decisions and the unfolding events of June 25th. Custer, leading his 7th Cavalry Regiment, was part of a larger expeditionary force tasked with locating and engaging the large encampment of Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes. Driven by the discovery of gold in the Black Hills, the U.S. government was determined to force the tribes onto reservations. Custer, known for his aggressive tactics and eagerness for glory, was operating under the assumption that the Native American encampment was smaller and more disorganized than it actually was. His reconnaissance scouts, including some Crow scouts who would later fight against him, provided intelligence, but the sheer scale of the encampment—estimated to be between 7,000 and 10,000 individuals, including women and children, and over 2,000 warriors—was not fully appreciated by Custer himself or his superiors.

Upon reaching the Little Bighorn River, Custer made a fateful decision. Instead of waiting for reinforcements from Brigadier General Alfred Terry and Colonel John Gibbon's commands, he decided to attack the encampment immediately. He also made the critical choice to divide his regiment, a move that would prove disastrous. He split his force into three battalions: one under Major Marcus Reno, one under Captain Frederick Benteen, and his own immediate command. Reno's battalion was ordered to attack the southern end of the encampment, while Benteen's battalion was instructed to scout the southern perimeter and then join Reno. Custer, with his five companies, intended to move north and attack the encampment from that direction, effectively surrounding it.

The Assault on the Southern Flank and Reno's Retreat

Major Reno's attack, launched around 3 p.m. on June 25th, was met with fierce and immediate resistance. The warriors, alerted to the approaching soldiers, rapidly mobilized. Reno's command advanced into a village and engaged in skirmishing, but they were quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of warriors who poured out of the lodges. The fighting was intense, and Reno's men soon found themselves in a desperate situation. Under heavy fire and facing a relentless onslaught, Reno ordered his men to retreat to the bluffs overlooking the river. This retreat quickly devolved into a panicked rout, with soldiers abandoning their positions and some even drowning in the river as they fled. The surviving soldiers, including Captain Benteen's battalion which had joined Reno after being ordered to "stay and chew over" the situation, dug in on the bluffs. They would spend the next day and a half enduring a siege by the Native American warriors.

This initial phase of the battle is crucial because it drew a significant portion of the Native American fighting force to engage Reno and Benteen. However, it did not draw all of them. While Reno's fight was raging on the southern end of the vast encampment, Custer and his five companies were moving north, unseen and unheard by the bulk of the Native American forces. The sounds of Reno's engagement, while distant, might have been perceived as a successful engagement rather than a desperate struggle. This miscalculation would have profound consequences.

Custer's Northern March and the Engagement of the "Long Hair"

Custer's route took him along the eastern side of the Little Bighorn River, keeping him out of sight of the main village for a significant portion of his march. His objective was to hit the northern end of the encampment, preventing any escape and ideally encircling the Native American forces. However, the encampment was far larger and more spread out than he had anticipated. As Custer's command approached the northern part of the village, it encountered a significant number of warriors who were either guarding the northern flank or were returning from scouting missions. The exact size of Custer's force at this point is debated, with estimates ranging from around 210 to 260 men.

The first significant contact between Custer's command and the Native American warriors occurred near a series of hills that would later be known as "Last Stand Hill." The exact sequence of events is incredibly difficult to reconstruct with certainty. Eyewitness accounts from Native American warriors, though often collected years later and prone to fading memories or interpretive biases, offer the most detailed, albeit fragmented, picture. These accounts consistently describe a large force of soldiers being met by a massive number of warriors. The fighting was fierce and immediate. It's highly likely that Custer’s command was quickly outflanked and surrounded. The warriors, led by prominent figures like Crazy Horse, Gall, and Two Moons, exhibited remarkable coordination and bravery.

The Battle on the Ridge: "The Trumpet Sounded the Charge, and they Went for us"

The "Last Stand" itself, as depicted in popular culture, is often a romanticized notion of a cavalry charge against overwhelming odds. In reality, the fighting on the ridge was likely a protracted and desperate struggle. Accounts suggest that Custer’s men were dismounted and fighting on foot, using the terrain for whatever cover it offered. The Native American warriors, armed with rifles and bows and arrows, attacked from all sides, gradually pushing the soldiers back towards the summit of Last Stand Hill. The dense smoke from thousands of rifles and campfires would have obscured vision, adding to the confusion and terror of the engagement.

Many Native American accounts describe seeing soldiers falling from their horses. These falls could have been due to direct rifle fire, arrow wounds, or simply the panic and chaos of the battle causing horses to bolt or stumble. Some warriors specifically recall shooting at soldiers on horseback. For instance, Wooden Leg, a Cheyenne warrior, described seeing soldiers' horses shot out from under them. However, he does not attribute Custer’s fall to any single warrior.

A significant number of warrior testimonies point to the overwhelming nature of the assault. It wasn't one warrior with a lucky shot; it was the combined force of hundreds of warriors. They described the soldiers being pushed back, fighting fiercely, but being ultimately overcome. The narrative of a lone warrior delivering the fatal blow to Custer is largely a creation of later storytelling, perhaps an attempt to inject a heroic individual into a collective victory.

The Role of Individual Warriors and Collective Action

While we cannot name a single individual who "knocked Custer off his horse," it's crucial to acknowledge the bravery and skill of the warriors involved. Figures like Crazy Horse, whose tactical genius was evident throughout the battle, and Gall, a fierce Hunkpapa Lakota war leader, were instrumental in organizing and leading the assault. Other prominent warriors, such as Two Moons (Cheyenne) and White Bull (Minneconjou Lakota), also played significant roles. White Bull, in particular, claimed to have killed Custer, though his account has been debated by historians and other warriors who were present. He described a scene where he, armed with a lance and pistol, fought Custer directly, eventually killing him.

However, other warrior accounts contradict White Bull's claim, or at least offer a more nuanced perspective. Many warriors described a scene of utter pandemonium, with soldiers falling from their horses all around. It's possible that White Bull did kill a soldier who resembled Custer, or that he killed Custer at a point when the famed general was already wounded or dismounted. The fragmented nature of oral histories, the passage of time, and the sheer chaos of the event make definitive identification of a single killer of Custer incredibly challenging, if not impossible.

Interpreting Native American Testimonies: Challenges and Insights

Understanding who knocked Custer off his horse, or more accurately, how he fell and died, requires a careful examination of the oral histories of the Native American participants. These accounts, collected decades after the battle, provide invaluable insights into the Native American perspective, which was largely absent from early historical narratives. However, they are not without their challenges:

Memory and Time: The reliability of memory over long periods can be a factor. Details can fade, or perceptions might shift over time. Cultural Differences: The way events are recounted and interpreted can be influenced by cultural perspectives and storytelling traditions. Individual vs. Collective Narratives: While individual warriors might recount specific acts of bravery, the overall victory was a collective effort. Some accounts might elevate individual actions to explain the success. Post-Battle Narratives: The fame of Custer and the "Last Stand" legend might have influenced how some warriors recalled their involvement, perhaps seeking to be part of the most dramatic moments. Conflicting Accounts: As with any historical event, different individuals will have different perspectives and memories, leading to conflicting testimonies.

Despite these challenges, the collective weight of Native American testimony points to a few key points: Custer’s command was vastly outnumbered and outmaneuvered. The attack was a coordinated, overwhelming assault by hundreds of warriors. Soldiers were killed and fell from their horses throughout the engagement, not just at one specific moment or by one specific individual. Some accounts suggest Custer was wounded before he fell from his horse, while others describe him being shot from the saddle. The exact circumstances remain a subject of debate among historians, but the consensus is that it was not a single, decisive action by one warrior.

The Mystery of Custer's Mount

One of the persistent questions surrounding Custer's fall relates to his horse, a sorrel stallion named Dandy. It's widely believed that Custer was on horseback when he was first engaged. If Dandy was shot out from under him, it would have been a dramatic and significant event, potentially leading to his dismount. However, there is no definitive eyewitness account from either soldier or Native American that specifically describes Dandy being shot or Custer falling directly from its back in the initial stages of the fight on the ridge. Some accounts suggest Custer may have been wounded and then dismounted, fighting on foot before ultimately falling.

The battlefield itself offers few definitive clues. The bodies of Custer and his men were buried in mass graves, and the passage of time has obscured many specific details. Archaeological investigations have provided some insights into the fighting, but pinpointing the exact moment of Custer's fall from his horse is beyond the scope of physical evidence.

The Iconic Image and its Origins

The popular image of Custer falling from his horse is largely a product of later artistic interpretations. Paintings like Cassilly Adams's "Custer's Last Fight," commissioned in the 1870s and later popularized by lithographer A. Looff, depict Custer as a heroic figure, sword in hand, fighting bravely until his very last moments. These artistic renditions, while powerful, often take liberties with historical accuracy to serve a narrative purpose. The romanticized image of the fallen hero was compelling to a public grappling with the aftermath of the Indian Wars and seeking figures of American fortitude.

Later artists and illustrators, inspired by these earlier works, continued to perpetuate the idea of a dramatic, individual struggle. The specific detail of Custer being knocked off his horse, often portrayed as a singular, heroic act of defiance or a tragic moment of being struck down by a mighty warrior, became a central element of this visual narrative. It’s this artistic legacy, more than concrete historical evidence, that has cemented the image of Custer being "knocked off his horse" in the public consciousness.

What the Evidence Suggests: A Composite Picture

When we sift through the available evidence – the fragmented oral histories, the battlefield reports (which are admittedly biased and incomplete), and the context of the battle – a more complex picture emerges. It's highly probable that Custer was on horseback when his command first engaged the warriors on the ridge. It is also highly probable that his horse was hit by rifle fire or an arrow, causing him to fall. However, this would have been just one of many instances of soldiers falling from their horses during the intense fighting. He may have been wounded at this point, or he may have continued to fight on foot.

The notion of a single warrior delivering a decisive blow that "knocked Custer off his horse" is likely a simplification of a far more chaotic and widespread event. The warriors were fighting to drive away the invaders, and their attack was characterized by waves of warriors engaging different parts of Custer's line. Numerous soldiers would have been killed or wounded, and their horses would have fallen. Custer, as the commanding officer, would have been a prime target, but he was not fighting in isolation. He was part of a desperate struggle for survival.

The definitive answer to who knocked Custer off his horse, therefore, is not a name, but a multitude. It was the combined, overwhelming force of the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors who surrounded and annihilated Custer's command. His fall was a consequence of their collective action, their courage, and their determination to defend their lands. To focus on a single individual is to miss the larger, more significant story of Indigenous resistance and the tragic end of a military campaign that was ill-conceived and disastrously executed.

The Significance of the Little Bighorn Battle

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was more than just a military defeat; it was a profound cultural and political event. For the Native American tribes, it was a moment of incredible unity and a testament to their warrior traditions. They had successfully defended their way of life, at least for a time. However, the victory was ultimately short-lived. The U.S. government, angered and embarrassed by the defeat, increased its military efforts in the region, leading to increased pressure on the tribes and their eventual forced relocation to reservations.

For the United States, the battle served as a stark reminder of the tenacity and strength of the Native American resistance. It challenged the prevailing narrative of inevitable westward expansion and forced a re-evaluation of military strategy. The legend of Custer's Last Stand, while a romanticized notion, also became a symbol of American bravery in the face of overwhelming odds, even as it obscured the Native American perspective and the reasons for their fight.

The Ongoing Debate and Historical Inquiry

The mystery of who knocked Custer off his horse, and indeed the precise circumstances of his death, continues to fuel historical debate and research. New interpretations of existing evidence and archaeological findings occasionally bring new perspectives to light. However, it's unlikely that a definitive, singular answer will ever be found. The nature of the battle, the loss of direct eyewitness accounts from Custer's men, and the challenges of interpreting oral histories make absolute certainty elusive.

What is certain is that the question itself invites us to look beyond the simplistic myths and delve into the complex realities of this pivotal moment in American history. It encourages us to appreciate the collective efforts of the warriors who fought so fiercely and to understand the battle not as a personal tragedy for one man, but as a significant event in the broader struggle for the American West.

Frequently Asked Questions About Custer's Last Stand

How did Custer die?

The exact circumstances of Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer's death remain a subject of considerable debate among historians. While popular culture often depicts a dramatic final stand, the reality is likely more chaotic and less clearly defined. The most widely accepted theories suggest that Custer was likely killed during the intense fighting on the ridge that became known as Last Stand Hill. Some accounts, particularly from Native American warriors, suggest he may have been shot from his horse, while others indicate he might have been wounded and dismounted, fighting on foot before succumbing to his injuries. There's also the possibility that he took his own life, although this is less supported by evidence.

The challenge in determining his precise cause of death stems from several factors. Firstly, the battle was incredibly fierce and chaotic, with dense smoke and confusion making clear observation difficult. Secondly, many of Custer's own men perished with him, leaving no direct soldier accounts of his final moments. Thirdly, Native American oral histories, while invaluable, are often fragmented and collected years after the event, with variations in details and interpretations. Some warrior accounts claim to have personally killed Custer, but these testimonies are often contradictory or lack corroboration. Ultimately, the most plausible scenario is that Custer fell victim to the overwhelming assault by the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors, but the precise blow or circumstance that ended his life remains elusive.

Why is the question "who knocked Custer off his horse" so significant?

The question, "who knocked Custer off his horse," is significant not because there is a single, definitive answer that would change the course of history, but because it serves as a potent symbol and a gateway into understanding the complexities of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This question encapsulates the romanticized, often mythologized, narrative of the "Last Stand" – an image of a heroic, albeit doomed, cavalry commander facing impossible odds.

Historically, the focus on a single individual's action – in this case, the warrior who might have dismounted Custer – reflects a tendency in Western historiography to seek out singular acts of heroism or villainy, often simplifying complex conflicts. It also highlights the difficulty in reconstructing events from a battle where the perspective of the victorious side (the Native Americans) was largely marginalized in early historical accounts.

Furthermore, the very ambiguity surrounding Custer's fall and death speaks volumes about the nature of the battle itself. It underscores the overwhelming and collective nature of the Native American assault. It wasn't one warrior's singular deed that defeated Custer, but the coordinated action of hundreds. The question, therefore, becomes less about identifying a specific assassin and more about acknowledging the collective power and determination of the warriors who defended their homeland. It pushes us to question the traditional narratives and to seek a more nuanced understanding of the battle, acknowledging the contributions and perspectives of all involved, particularly the Native American tribes.

What do Native American accounts say about Custer's fall?

Native American oral histories offer a varied but generally consistent picture of Custer's demise, contributing significantly to our understanding beyond the early, often biased, U.S. Army accounts. While no single warrior's testimony is universally accepted as the definitive explanation for exactly who knocked Custer off his horse, these accounts collectively paint a picture of intense, overwhelming fighting rather than a duel.

Many warriors recalled seeing soldiers, including Custer, falling from their horses. These falls were attributed to rifle fire, arrows, and the general chaos of the battle. Some warriors, like White Bull of the Minneconjou Lakota, claimed to have personally killed Custer. He described a detailed encounter where he engaged Custer and ultimately killed him. However, other warriors who were present did not corroborate this specific account, suggesting that White Bull may have killed another soldier, or that his memory, collected years later, might have been influenced by the desire to be prominently featured in the famous battle.

Other significant warriors, such as Gall and Crazy Horse, are remembered for their leadership and their role in the overall victory, rather than a specific act of killing Custer. Many testimonies emphasize the sheer number of warriors engaged and the intense, close-quarters fighting that occurred. The general consensus from these accounts is that Custer was likely shot from his horse, or was dismounted due to wounds, and then killed amidst the surrounding melee. The idea of a single, identifiable warrior bringing Custer down is largely absent from the most consistent and widely accepted Native American narratives, which instead emphasize the collective effort of the warriors.

Could Custer have been killed by friendly fire or suicide?

Theories suggesting that Custer might have been killed by friendly fire or committed suicide are less supported by the available evidence and historical consensus, though they do exist in the broader discourse surrounding his death. Friendly fire is a difficult proposition to prove, given the complete annihilation of Custer's command. There were no surviving soldiers from his immediate command who could testify to such an event. The Native American accounts, while varied, generally describe soldiers being killed by warrior fire.

The theory of suicide has gained some traction, often based on the idea that Custer, facing inevitable defeat and capture, might have chosen to end his own life. Some accounts suggest that Custer was shot twice, perhaps by his own hand. However, these claims are often based on interpretations of wounds that could easily have been inflicted by enemy fire. The prevailing view among most historians is that Custer, like his men, died fighting. There is no definitive historical document or widely accepted testimony from either soldiers or warriors that strongly supports the suicide theory. The aggressive and often reckless nature of Custer's military career might lead some to consider such an act, but the evidence simply isn't compelling enough to make it a primary explanation for his death.

What is the "Last Stand" imagery and where did it come from?

The "Last Stand" imagery associated with Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn is a powerful and enduring myth in American history, largely originating from artistic depictions and journalistic accounts following the battle. This imagery typically portrays Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer as a heroic, defiant figure, surrounded by his brave but doomed men, fighting valiantly against overwhelming Native American forces until the very last moment. He is often shown on horseback, sword in hand, a symbol of the U.S. Cavalry's courage and sacrifice.

The most influential early depiction was Cassilly Adams's painting, "Custer's Last Fight," commissioned shortly after the battle. This painting was later acquired by the brewing company Anheuser-Busch and widely reproduced as a lithograph, becoming incredibly popular and shaping public perception. Other artists and illustrators, such as Frederic Remington and Cassilly's own apprentice, Allen True, further solidified this heroic, yet tragic, narrative through their works. These artists often prioritized dramatic storytelling and romanticized notions of heroism over strict historical accuracy.

The media of the time also played a significant role in crafting the "Last Stand" narrative. Newspapers sensationalized the defeat, portraying Custer as a fallen martyr to the cause of westward expansion. This imagery served a societal purpose, providing a clear hero and villain narrative at a time when the nation was celebrating its centennial and grappling with the complex realities of the Indian Wars. The "Last Stand" became a potent symbol of American courage and determination, even as it often overlooked or distorted the Native American perspective and the reasons behind their fierce resistance.

What lessons can be learned from the Battle of the Little Bighorn?

The Battle of the Little Bighorn offers a profound and multifaceted set of lessons that continue to resonate today, extending far beyond military strategy. For military historians, it serves as a classic case study in the dangers of underestimating an enemy, the critical importance of accurate intelligence, and the catastrophic consequences of dividing forces without a clear plan for consolidation and support. Custer's decision to divide his regiment and attack without waiting for reinforcements proved to be a fatal error, highlighting the necessity of disciplined command and adherence to strategic principles, even in the face of perceived opportunity.

Beyond the battlefield, the battle provides crucial lessons about cultural understanding and the devastating impact of expansionism. It starkly illustrates the fierce determination of Indigenous peoples to defend their lands, sovereignty, and way of life against encroachment. The victory at the Little Bighorn, though ultimately temporary, demonstrated the strength of the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes when united. It forces us to confront the often brutal realities of Manifest Destiny and the human cost of territorial expansion. The event underscores the need for empathy and respect for different cultures and the devastating consequences that arise when these are disregarded.

Furthermore, the battle and its aftermath highlight the power of narrative and how history is constructed. The enduring myth of "Custer's Last Stand" underscores how popular culture and artistic interpretations can shape public memory, often overshadowing more complex truths and the perspectives of marginalized groups. It teaches us the importance of critically examining historical accounts, seeking diverse sources, and understanding the biases that can influence how events are remembered and presented. The ongoing scholarly debate and reinterpretation of the battle are testaments to its enduring significance and the continuous effort required to achieve a more complete and equitable understanding of the past.

What happened to the Native American tribes after the battle?

The victory at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, while a moment of triumph and defiance for the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes, ultimately proved to be a Pyrrhic victory. The immediate aftermath saw increased determination from the U.S. government to subdue the Plains tribes. Instead of fostering a desire for negotiation, the defeat galvanized the U.S. military and political establishment to pursue a more aggressive policy.

Following the battle, the U.S. Army intensified its campaigns against the tribes. Warriors who had participated in the victory found themselves increasingly cornered and pressured. Many were forced to scatter and live in smaller, more mobile groups to evade capture. Over the next year, the U.S. military launched a series of relentless campaigns, often referred to as the "Great Sioux War of 1876-77," which aimed to capture or kill the remaining free-roaming tribes and force them onto reservations. Notable campaigns included General Nelson Miles's actions, which eventually led to the surrender of many Lakota and Cheyenne individuals.

Within a few years of the Little Bighorn victory, most of the Plains tribes were confined to reservations. This confinement led to profound cultural, social, and economic disruption. Their traditional way of life, which was deeply intertwined with the buffalo and the open plains, was systematically dismantled. The government's policies on reservations often included efforts to assimilate Native Americans, suppress their cultural practices, and break down their tribal structures. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, therefore, marked a turning point, a brief but glorious moment of resistance that was ultimately followed by further subjugation and the erosion of tribal autonomy.

How has the interpretation of the Battle of the Little Bighorn evolved over time?

The interpretation of the Battle of the Little Bighorn has undergone a significant and crucial evolution since the event itself. Initially, in the immediate aftermath of the battle, particularly in the United States, the narrative was heavily dominated by the U.S. Army's perspective and the sensationalized accounts of the press. Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer was largely portrayed as a heroic martyr, a victim of a savage and overwhelming enemy. This "Custer's Last Stand" narrative became deeply ingrained in American folklore and popular culture, often serving to justify the ongoing campaigns against Native American tribes.

This heroic, albeit one-sided, interpretation persisted for many decades. However, in the mid-to-late 20th century, spurred by the Civil Rights movement and a growing awareness of the injustices faced by Indigenous peoples, historians began to re-examine the battle from multiple perspectives. The collection and analysis of Native American oral histories became paramount. Scholars like Stanley Vestal, John S. Gray, and later, numerous historians from Native American backgrounds, worked to incorporate the voices and experiences of the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors into the historical record. This shift led to a more nuanced understanding, recognizing the battle as a significant act of Indigenous resistance against territorial expansion and cultural oppression.

The interpretation also evolved to emphasize the tactical brilliance of the Native American leadership, such as Crazy Horse and Gall, and the strategic flaws of the U.S. Army's approach. The focus moved from Custer's personal tragedy to the broader context of the Plains Indian Wars and the complex dynamics of that era. Modern interpretations now strive for a more balanced and inclusive account, acknowledging the bravery and determination of both sides, while centering the experiences and perspectives of the Native American peoples who fought for their survival. The question of who knocked Custer off his horse, once a focus on a singular heroic deed, is now understood as a reflection of a collective, successful defense by Indigenous warriors.