[unkus]

Best evidence from Indian testimony is he was hit early in the battle, most likely at the river crossing. This probably led to the failure of the initial attack and eventual breakdown in unit cohesion.

---

The Indians out gunned the soldiers.They had better weapons. Unit cohesion wouldn’t have mattered.

[RedMonqey]

The Indians out gunned the soldiers.They had better weapons. Unit cohesion wouldn’t have mattered.

Au Contaire!

Better weaons doesn't necessarily mean winning in battle.

In many Civil War battles where Union troops were better armed than their Confederate counterparts, the rebs won against the odds.

And unit cohension was important too.

However, in this case the indians were better armed, more of them and had the greater motivation.

Custer let his "bravado" overcome his scouts warnings of large troop of Indians ahead. And leaving behind an unit under Benteen and Reno attacking without cordination didn't help their odds against an combined Cheyenne and Sioux force.

Had Custer been able to fall back and get reinforced by either commands, and Renos didn't panic while retreating, the Little BigHorn would be just another river in Montana.