Little Bighorn may be the most popularised battle in history. It is probably the subject of more films and documentaries than any other. The character of its most-famous protagonist -George Armstrong Custer -and the sequence of events which led to the destruction of his command on 25 June 1876 have been endlessly debated for 140 years.

Why the fascination? One reason, surely, is that most battles of the colonial era were little more than one-sided slaughter. As such, they lack both drama and interest. The essential ingredient of uncertain outcome is missing. Is this not why we remember Isandlwana better than Ulundi, Maiwand better than Kandahar.

Little Bighorn is, of course, the battle the Indians won. The tragic record of ethnic-cleansing -for such it was -by which the American West was cleared of indigenous people to make way for white settlers was, for a moment, reversed. The underdog fought back and triumphed.

Perhaps, too, there is satisfaction in the fate of Custer, who seems to have been a man of exceptional arrogance, callousness, and ambition, wholly without redeeming moral qualities. He had it coming, we feel.

US military historian Fred Chiaventone tells the story of the Little Bighorn this issue, while Jeremy Black analyses a century of air power, Donald Stoker reveals Clausewitz at war, David Porter begins a two-parter on incendiary weapons, and Patrick Mercer continues our regiment series by recalling the epic resistance of the Royal Berkshires at Anzio.