That balance is now much more common in serious historical scholarship than it was when Medicine Crow began his career.

His work helped make that shift possible.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn was an ideal case study because the event generated competing memories almost immediately.

Army survivors from other parts of the campaign, Native participants, scouts, officers’ families, journalists, and later historians all constructed versions of what happened.

Medicine Crow brought a Crow perspective rooted in direct family transmission.

That perspective did not simply answer the question “Who killed Custer?” — the question popular culture often wanted most.

It showed that the battle belonged to a web of Native political relationships and strategic decisions that could not be reduced to a cavalry tragedy.

By preserving that complexity, Medicine Crow helped move public history away from a story in which Native people existed only as the force surrounding Custer.

They had histories before the battle, reasons for being there, disagreements among themselves, and futures afterward.

This intellectual contribution may be less cinematic than stealing horses in Germany.