The Battle of the Little Bighorn, famed for the “last stand” of cavalry commander George Armstrong Custer, took place 150 years ago on June 25–26, 1876.

History buffs love to debate the worst military disasters and blunders. From Cannae to Dien Bien Phu, dozens of battles are remembered simply because they went so poorly for the losing side, in spite of its numerical or other advantages. A handful stand out for the annihilation of an entire fighting force—including the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, which saw the destruction of three full Roman legions; the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879, where the British Army suffered the worst defeat of a modern European army at the hands of an indigenous Zulu force armed with vastly inferior weapons; and of course the Battle of Stalingrad, where the German Sixth Army was destroyed, shattering the myth of German invincibility in World War II.

It was150 years ago today that the United States military arguably suffered its greatest military disaster of the 19th century: the Battle of the Little Bighorn, fought from June 25 to 26, 1876, in southeastern Montana. Though the battle should perhaps be remembered for the baffling tactical errors of losing commander Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer, it has nevertheless been romanticized in movies, TV shows, and enough artwork to fill a sizable gallery.

How Did Custer Get Things So Wrong So Quickly at Little Bighorn?

Historians generally agree that the defeat of the 7th Cavalry 150 years ago is solely the responsibility of Custer, a brash officer well-known for his bravado and penchant for extreme risk-taking. 

The war between the United States and an alliance of the Lakota (Sioux), Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho led by Lakota chief Sitting Bull was based around land. In 1868, the Treaty of Fort Laramie recognized the Black Hills of South Dakota as Lakota territory, and the United States vowed to keep white settlers from encroaching on those lands. This plan abruptly changed in 1874, when gold was discovered in the hills. An inpour of settlers led the Lakota to take up arms, and Custer was sent to “pacify” the rebellious tribes.

The US Cavalry conducted many such campaigns against Native American tribes, and the overwhelming majority ended with US troops easily achieving their aims. Instead, through a series of tactical and strategic blunders, Custer led his soldiers into a disaster.

1. Custer didn’t take enough men.

At the time of its expedition against the Lakota and their allies, Custer’s 7th Cavalry consisted of roughly 700 soldiers. Ahead of the campaign, Custer was offered two additional cavalry companies, potentially tripling the size of his force to around 2,500. Such a force would have been difficult for the Lakota and their allies to match—but Custer declined reinforcements, believing that the 7th Cavalry could handle anything it might encounter.

2. Custer’s men left their best guns behind. 

The United States Army’s 7th Cavalry troopers were armed with the single-shot Springfield .45-caliber carbine and revolvers. Although an accurate weapon, the “Trapdoor” Springfield had a slow rate of fire, where each round had to be manually inserted into the breech. Many rifles with a faster rate of fire existed, including the famed Winchester and Henry repeating rifles, both of which were accurate at long ranges. The Springfield’s slow rate of fire was a feature, not a bug; the weapon was intentionally chosen by military planners to prioritize long-range accuracy and to conserve limited ammunition, making each shot count.

At the range most battles were fought at, the Springfield’s slow rate of fire wasn’t a problem. However, in a close-quarters fight, it became a serious liability. Even worse, during pitched battles, many rifles jammed due to extraction failures caused by the heat-swollen copper cartridge cases and black powder fouling. As the cavalry carbines lacked cleaning rods, soldiers reportedly used knife blades to pry out stuck casings, further slowing the rate of fire.

Custer also made the bewildering decision to leave behind heavier weapons. It is widely recounted that, prior to departing on his campaign, Custer was offered the use of Gatling guns, the machine guns of the late 19th century, which would have conferred a tremendous advantage on the cavalry troop. Instead of taking the guns along, Custer opted to leave them behind, reasoning that they would slow down his column.

3. Custer and his troops didn’t take their sabers, either. 

During the campaign, the 7th Cavalry also left their Model 1860 cavalry sabers behind at a supply base. This caused a problem, as the cavalry’s rifles were not meant to be used on horseback. Therefore, rather than serving as traditional heavy cavalry, the absence of sabers meant that the troop was forced to fight as mounted infantry—meaning they were expected to ride to an area, dismount, and then fight on foot using their rifles, significantly negating the advantages provided by horses.

Although the sabers were heavy and clunky—and made a loud clanking noise—some historians have argued that the sabers could have given the troopers an advantage, or at least a better fighting chance in close-quarter combat. Others, however, have argued that the weapons wouldn’t have provided much help in the battle that followed.

4. Custer underestimated the size and capabilities of the Lakota and their allies. 

The Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho warriors are primarily depicted in battle art with bows and arrows. In fact, they had obtained the aforementioned Winchester and Henry repeating rifles, enabling them to outgun the troopers.

Custer had divided his 700-man cavalry unit into three separate battalions of roughly 200–250 men each, which prevented the isolated units from supporting one another. He then ignored intelligence from his native scouts of the size of the Lakota encampment and ordered his already-tired horses and men into an immediate charge.

Instead of overrunning the encampment, Custer’s force of around 210 men was soon encircled by somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 warriors. His detachment was quickly overwhelmed and killed within an hour.

Even as Custer and his men were being killed to the last man, the other two battalions of the 7th Cavalry retreated to defensive positions on the bluffs, where they were besieged until the following afternoon. The Native American warriors broke off their attack and began withdrawing in the late afternoon of June 26 after receiving word that US reinforcements were advancing up the valley.

Bighorn Was a “Little” Battle, but a Shocking Defeat for America

By comparison to the other great military blunders, the Battle of the Little Bighorn falls more in the “little” category. Unlike Teutoburg Forest, Stalingrad, or Dien Bien Phu, an army wasn’t destroyed or captured. Only 268 US Army cavalrymen were killed in the fight, far smaller than the battles of the Civil War a decade earlier. And while the battle was a tactical disaster for the US Cavalry, it had almost no impact on the broader war; within months, the Lakota had been routed by other Army units.

If anything, the cost of winning was catastrophic. As in Isandlwana, where the British defeat led to fury in London and ultimately the destruction of the Zulu kingdom, dismay at the death of Custer led Americans to call for harsh punitive measures against the Lakota and their allies. 

“The death of Custer and his troops became a rallying point for the United States to increase its efforts to force native peoples onto reservation lands,” the National Park Service says on its website for the battle monument.

Less than a year after the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the Great Sioux War of 1876—also known as the Black Hills War—ended in a US victory. The US government took control of the Black HIlls without compensation; the Lakota were forced onto a series of smaller reservations in the years that followed before relocating to the Pine Ridge Reservation in 1890, where they have remained since.

About the Author: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu has contributed to dozens of newspapers, magazines and websites over a 30-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a contributing writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

The post America’s Most Famous Military Disaster Took Place in Montana 150 Years Ago Today appeared first on The National Interest.