Battle Of The Little Bighorn

What are the differences in the two accounts of the Battle of Little Big Horn?

What conclusions can you make from the different ways of presenting the

same event?

Battle Of The Little Bighorn

Battle of the Little Bighorn as depicted by the eye witness Lakota took place around the river named the “Little Bighorn.” It involved the U.S Calvary soldiers and the Indian Army .despite the fact that the two rivals engaged in the same war, the two accounts clearly depict some differences from their preparedness in the war to who emerges the winner. Firstly, the Sioux that comprised of the Indian army camped on the bank of the Little Bighorn River before the target battle day. On the contrary, it is when the Us Calvary soldier’s leader realized that the Indian village had camped near the river that he stood up and decided to invade the village alone despite being warned of the massive number of the Indian army (Gitlin, 2008).

Secondly, the Indian army embraced unity throughout the war and they see their troop in agreement to fight the soldiers, but on the other side, the U.S army was divided into three troops after Custer realized that he could not fight the Sioux alone. Consequently, Custer and his crew surrender their will to the Sioux whereby they beg them to retain them as soldiers but rather, the Sioux ignores their plea and kills all of them(Gitlin,2008).Apparently, the loss so outraged the U.S government that the army mounted a new offensive, crushed armed Sioux resistance.

Conclusively, from the way the occurrences have been presented, I can deduce that for an eye witness to give accurate information about a certain event, they must have a consistent flow of information to avoid contraindicating the reader.in view of the script, consistent flow of information enhances readability and makes it easy to identify the setting, plot as well as the climax of the event.

References

Gitlin, Marty. The Battle Of The Little Bighorn. 1st ed. Edina, Minn.: ABDO Pub., 2008.