The nature of the Cree advance on Battleford, like the entire 1885 Rebellion, is a source of historiographical controversy.
 Historian Douglas Hill characterized the Cree group as a "war party ... ready to take revenge for a winter of incalculable suffering" who "swooped on Battleford, killing six whites".
George F. G. Stanley's writing on the subject indicated that the Cree were not murderous but more haphazard and bumbling: they "[did] not appear to have in mind an attack upon the town" but were content with "prowling around the neighbourhood".
 While John L. Tobias says that the Crees tried to demonstrate their "peaceful intent" by including women and children in their group, simply took food to sustain themselves after finding the town abandoned, and then withdrew to avoid conflict with the police.
The nature of the Cree advance on Battleford, like the entire 1885 Rebellion, is a source of historiographical controversy.  Historian Douglas Hill characterized the Cree group as a "war party ... ready to take revenge for a winter of incalculable suffering" who "swooped on Battleford, killing six whites". George F. G. Stanley's writing on the subject indicated that the Cree were not murderous but more haphazard and bumbling: they "[did] not appear to have in mind an attack upon the town" but were content with "prowling around the neighbourhood".  While John L. Tobias says that the Crees tried to demonstrate their "peaceful intent" by including women and children in their group, simply took food to sustain themselves after finding the town abandoned, and then withdrew to avoid conflict with the police.
Looting of Battleford