And the Battle of the Little Bighorn - Sitting Bull

Review of Philbrick’s "The last stand" by Paul F. Ross

Most of us, asked to recall “Custer’s last stand” based on what we remember from our schooldays’ history, would say that it was an event in which George Armstrong Custer and the US Army soldiers he commanded fought Sitting Bull and his Indians on the Little Bighorn River in Montana and were wiped out … no survivors. Nathaniel Philbrick uses bibliographic sources listed on 28 pages and notes presented on 93 pages that link those sources to the text of his history to try to reconstruct an hour by hour, minute by minute, narrative of that event on 25 June 1876 as well as providing portraits of the individuals and
____________________________________________________________________________________

Philbrick, Nathaniel "The last stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn" 2010, The Penguin Group, New York NY, xxii + 466 pages
____________________________________________________________________________________

circumstances contributing to the outcomes on that day. There were many dead, as we know, but there were many, many more survivors, both from the US Army and from the Indian nations assembled on the Little Bighorn. Their testimony was recorded in many ways not long after the events themselves. Philbrick seeks, evaluates, and presents their testimony in a fascinating story.

Philbrick explores in particular Custer’s personality and past history as a military man in the US Civil War and in other encounters led by Custer at a time the US government under President Ulysses S. Grant sought to move the Indian peoples of the West to reservations, thus facilitating the “manifest destiny” cherished by European migrants and American-born offspring of European migrants who wished to own and govern the land “from sea to shining sea.” The transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869. American pioneers were moving west. The Indian nations of the northern plains survived on buffalo and moved with the buffalo. The Little Bighorn River emptied into the Bighorn River, both flowing north. The Bighorn emptied into the Yellowstone River, flowing east, and the Yellowstone into the Missouri River flowing east and southeast. In 1876, steam powered river boats navigated the Missouri River as far upstream as the mouth of the Bighorn on the Yellowstone. In 1876, Fort Lincoln was an important military post on the Missouri River south of Bismarck, Dakota Territory. Fort Buford was another military post on the Missouri at the mouth of the Yellowstone River. Custer and his men left Fort Lincoln on their assigned task :: find Sitting Bull and persuade him and his followers to go to reservations in Oklahoma. Supplies supporting this military operation were shipped up the Missouri to Fort Buford and eventually to the mouths of the Rosebud and Bighorn Rivers on the Yellowstone. But this was merely the geographical setting, the logistical challenge, the assigned task for the Army. The actual events simply evolved.

Philbrick opens with Custer dead, a smile on Custer’s face. Philbrick then does flashbacks to introduce Custer, his romance and family life with Libbie, his prior experience fighting Indians, his willingness to do the dramatic to be seen in a parade in Washington DC, earning President Grant’s disgust, and other elements of Custer’s career and the careers of his fellow officers who led US Army forces up the Rosebud River in June 1876 following the trail of Indian villages that had moved to new locations. The reader watches Custer divide his command, assigning each unit a task, Philbrick speculating about Custer’s insights and motivations. Custer’s several military units eventually cross the pass between the Rosebud River and the drainage for the Bighorn River, see Sitting Bull’s villages, and the reader follows each military leader and his unit’s activities. Custer’s unit, lacking survivors, is tracked based on testimony from survivors in other Army units, Indian testimony, and archaeological surveys of the battlefield. Philbrick tracks the aftermath of the battle itself and life’s outcomes for several key participants.

The tale is very well told, dispenses praise and criticism generously, has twenty first century understanding of the choices the Indians were facing … is altogether a riveting read.

Bellevue, Washington 2 March 2016

Copyright © 2016 by Paul F. Ross All rights reserved.

I have read a few of Nathaniel Philbrick's books, and looked forward to this one. I was disappointed by a few things. As usual I did learn some interesting things from the extensive and balanced research the author always seems to do. However, almost half the book was notes, acknowledgements, etc. For those who use this work as a basis for more research, this will be appreciated, but I felt it was misleading. Also I found the writing in The Last Stand to be laborious reading, which surprised me as I had not found this with any of the books I'd read before. It was laborious in that I found myself frequently having to parse sentences and paragraphs, and having to re-read sections to try to determine who and what was being said, and who it was being said about. This seemed to have come from unclear references to prior subjects, ideas, events, etc. And there was a great deal of mixture of events from several years earlier than the event, things occurring in different places at the time of the event, and things that happened many years after the event. This required the reader to pay careful attention to the dates mentioned as when action occurred (and sometimes assume the timeframe). All of this being said, I have started yet another Philbrick work, so it didn't put me off that much. It just did not seem up to his normal writing.

In comparison to Philbrick's other books, LAST STAND comes up a little bit short. Perhaps because Custer himself is somewhat of a cipher, the book lacks the deeply engaging personalities that propel a fascinating read. Instead, we get a straightforward military history of the journey to disaster....a journey launched by bad policy and implemented by a dysfunctional Army. Coupled with Custer's unfathomable embrace of risk in the pursuit of glory and questionable tactical military abilities (his previous "successes" in the Civil War were more borne of imprudent and rash but exceedingly bold decisions than military genius) it is a recipe for disaster and so it turns out. In his usual fluid and engaging style, Philbrick does a commendable job of showing how the twists and turns of policy making in Washington, the biases and predilections of the other key players (Marcus, Reno, Sitting Bull), and the physical environment (terrain, weather) influenced events and wraps up nicely the story by setting it in the context of the times - America's centennial and post-event hagiography of Custer, primarily at the behest of his wife. But all in all, it is a story of bad policy, poor military execution, and pointless death and destruction -- perhaps in this reader's eyes, the story has diminished the book!!

If everything you think you know about the 1876 battle of the Little Big Horn comes from the 1941 film "They Died With Their Boots On", Philbrick's account will serve as a jolt. You start here with a grim introduction to the U.S. Cavalry of America's centennial year: largely inexperienced troopers, poorly trained, poorly armed, bringing poor equestrian skills to bear on unseasoned horses, spread so thinly over a vast frontier it can't even begin to defend against nomadic native American Indian warriors raised for combat.

Gradually added are some unsettling 7th Cavalry specifics: brash, impetuous glory hound commander Colonel George A. Custer is at war with key subordinate officers, and under some very ambiguous orders for engaging a force of unknown size led by legendary Sioux chief Sitting Bull. Then as the battle nears, Philbrick tops everything off with a tense description of the contact zone in South Dakota's rolling hills. The topography made intelligence gathering nearly impossible, and persuaded Custer to split his force off into six groups trying to get a handle on things. As it turned out against the very superior numbers of Sioux, his column would need every one of those men he no longer had.

The result would be the army's worst disaster of the 1800s plains wars, 210 men in Custer's main battalion wiped out. It was not a pretty story and consequently neither is the book. It may be a little too harsh depicting Custer and a little too soft on Sitting Bull and his lieutenant Crazy Horse. Each was, after all, human albeit brave. But it's a cinch Philbrick's very readable work offers a far more accurate picture than Hollywood's take on the ill-fated 7th, blazing away to the end in a disciplined little circle on open level ground.

IMHO postscript: This is a book with significant intellectual ambitions, as evidenced by almost 150 pages of reference material following the epilogue. That's a third of the total page count, and for what? Print books ought to dispense with the convention of offering everything in hard copy, and refer the reader instead to a website containing this more esoteric information. Let's save some trees and lower the cover price of print books at the same time.

Nathaniel Philbrick has become a favorite writer of mine in recent years. His nautical background has informed Heart of the Sear and Sea of Glory, two very strong books of popular narrative history. I also enjoyed Bunker Hill, set in Philbrick's native Boston, but this book is just not up to the remarkably high level of his other books.

Philbrick is a terrific narrative writer, but not a military historian. While his Bunker Hill book deals extensively with political developments in colonial Boston and the underground revoluntary movement, as well as the Battle of Bunker Hill proper, this book focuses much more on the battle itself, and Philbrick's inexperience as a military historian shows up here.

This is an okay book by a great author who may have taken on a subject a bit out of his area of expertise. It feels a bit like a perfunctory effort to fulfill a contract.

I do recommend it, as the author is talented. However, if you plan to read one book on this topic, you might try Evan S. Connell's Son of the Morning Star, even though it predates this by about 20 years.

The Last Stand - Nathaniel Philbrick - unabridged audio book

The following comments are for the unabridged CD audio book version of "The Last Stand " by Nathaniel Philbrick. The book is subtitled "Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Big Horn". George Guidall reads the book. This is a Penguin Audio edition.

Certainly this is a detailed and comprehensive retelling of the tragic events that took place prior too, during and after the Battle of the Little Big Horn. In addition this book presents significant information relating to George Armstrong Custer, Sitting Bull, the Plains Indians and the military movements and logistics of the post Civil War army. This reader found many of these topics worthy of individual study. Mr. Philbrick provides us with a "you are there" perspective of these topics and events by interweaving extensive quotations from official reports, diaries, letters and contempary newspaper accounts into his text.

I can only marvel at the audacity and ego that drove Custer and the almost mystical world and visions of Sitting Bull. It is hard to believe that Sitting Bull participated in reenactments battles as a member of a commercial enterprise
: Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show.

This listener found the narrator, George Guidall, an admirable speaker whose lucid pronunciation and reasonable pacing a pleasure to listen too. There were occasions in the text, for example a participant's diary entry detailing a battle, where Mr. Guidall improvises a forceful dynamic tone, which greatly adds to the enjoyment of the listening experience.

This audio book consist 10 compact disks with a total playtime of approximately 12 hours. The disks are secured in two standard fan fold multi CD holders. These two inserts slide into the external packaging box. The CD holders do not have identifications on the spine listing the CD numbers. I mention this minor point because a numbering feature is very useful when you're looking for the next CD to be played.

If you're generally interested in "The West", go pick up Hampton Sides' "Blood and Thunder", S.C. Gwynne's "Empire of the Summer Moon", Landon Jones' "William Clark and the Shaping of the West", or any number of other, better, books. If you've really got a hankering for Custer, I suppose this one isn't going to do you much harm.

Philbrick is not a bad writer at the sentence level, and The Last Stand provides a interesting blow-by-blow account of the Battle of Little Bighorn. As coach Dennis Green might say, this book is what you think it is. I'm no expert, but the facts appear right and you learn some interesting details about the men and the leaders and even the horses (I would have liked to see a bit more forensic analysis of what recent technological advances have been able to prove or disprove, where bits of metal and bone have been found or not found, etc.). No real surprises or breakthroughs on the general story.

But while Philbrick is a good writer in the sense that individual sentences and paragraphs are well done and lively and keep you turning the pages, his overall writing suffers because of the way he chose to structure this book. He's too enamored with flashbacks and cuts, and he jumps around in time in a way that does not help the reader. He cuts away just when the story is getting going, and virtually mid-sentence, and he repeatedly cuts back to the same event only to give us a partial understanding of that event. For example, Philbrick repeatedly cuts back to the Battle of the Washita, but we never really get one clear telling of what went on there. This book would have worked better if it was more chronological.

Lastly, while this book is mainly a "just the facts, mam" recounting of Custer's Last Stand and what led up to it, every now and then Philbrick's own interpretations step to the fore, and his opinion about who the good guys and who the bad guys were is what you'd expect from a modern, enlightened, author. At one point Custer is criticized as being culturally insensitive for not understanding that he was just cursed by a Native American Chief. Well, ok, I'm sure Custer was culturally insensitive, but are "curses" real things that people are mandated to believe in to show they are culturally sensitive, or is a "curse" the kind of thing anyone is permitted to ignore because there is no such thing? When Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull has a prophetic vision, is it really a prophetic vision, or just the result of vague hallucinations caused by days out in the sun without food or water that aren't recorded until years later, perhaps after the "vision" has been massaged to fit the facts. If we're going to apply reason and science to all things, and we should, then we should apply it to all things. Similarly, Philbrick repeatedly points out contradictions and changes over time and self-serving statements by the whites, as he should, but doesn't hold the Native Americans to the same critical standard. Repeatedly, statements from Native American sources are taken on their face without any interest in digging into their accuracy or context. Philbrick then ends the book, of course, with a depiction of a meeting between Sitting Bull's descendant, a wise Vietnam Vet, and a silly Custer re-enactor who has purchased Custer's home. Philbrick then segues into a warning about Custer's legacy of last stands in a time of nuclear weapons, and a suggestion that our children would be better served by following Sitting Bull's legacy of diplomacy and survival. Of course.

I was highly impressed with Nathaniel Philbrick's three other books (Mayflower, In the Heart of the Sea, and Bunker Hill) that I didn't hesitate to dive into this book. What I got was more of the same: a page-turner, clear maps, and beautiful storytelling.

As in his other books, Mr. Philbrick likes to tell the story of the events leading up to George Armstrong Custer's Last Stand at Little Bighorn as well as the aftermath. Custer's history is examined to further understand his decision making. This context is important to understanding the Battle of the Little Bighorn, and the author compiles all this research together into a narrative that's easy to follow.

"The Last Stand," like Mr. Philbrick's other books, is targeted towards the general audience and not to Little Bighorn scholars (and I know there's many out there). It was interesting at first that he chose to write a book far removed from his usual subjects of the sea and New England history, but my doubts were quickly shattered after a few chapters. This book flows just as well as the rest!

After reading this book, I highly recommend the couple of movies on Custer he mentions in the preface: They Died with Their Boots On (1941) and Little Big Man (1970). They are both worth watching (though not historically accurate) in that they portray Custer completely differently from each other. Definitely worthwhile if you find yourself fascinated with Custer like I did.

What is it about "Custer's Last Stand" that so captivates and enthralls us like virtually no other battle in our nation's history? What other military event has inspired so many professional historians, and created so many amateur historians - people who have studied this subject in great depth for decades? Just look at the book reviews here and see both the praise and criticism this topic - and this book -evoke.

One issue with the LBH is that it has spawned a cottage industry of "experts", many of whom seem convinced that they - and perhaps they alone - know the "truth" about what happened that fateful day. Thus, there is nary an accepted "fact" about the battle that someone does not vigorously dispute.

With everyone who was directly fighting alongside Custer killed, and so many other sources to draw from (supposed eyewitness accounts, Reno and Benteen's surviving men, indian oral traditions, etc.) , no wonder so many people have reached differing conclusions about the LBH.

That being said, it still seems like we just can't get enough of it; perhaps because the Little Big Horn is THE textbook example of two great but totally different cultures colliding in an epic, bigger than life confrontation. One major culture - the native Americans - has already seen it's best days come and go due to a variety of factors, with the incursion of white settlers into historic indian lands being at the top of the list. The U.S. government, meanwhile, is still reeling from the civil war, and has nowhere near enough soldiers - let alone trained, seasoned ones - to police the vast western territories of a growing nation. The stage is set for a bloody showdown on the plains which will be a defining event for all concerned, and for our country as a whole.

Yet, even so many years removed, we are still prone to ask why it all had to end the gruesome way it did...for Custer and the 7th Calvary, and ultimately for the great plains indian tribes some years later. Everyone lost that day.

All of the characters here are real, and they are far more interesting and nuanced than any fictional characters could be.

Does this book break any insightful and amazing new ground in researching the battle? Perhaps not, but it is a fascinating read nonetheless.

Some other reviewers question the need for yet another book on George Armstrong Custer and the Battle of the Little Big Horn. No doubt some readers of this web-page question the need for yet another review of Philbrick's book. Given the number of reviews already posted, I will pretty much limit myself to a few comments comparing Philbrick's THE LAST STAND ["TLS"] with Evan S. Connell's "Son of the Morning Star" ["SotMS"], an earlier (1984) landmark work on Custer and the Little Big Horn (which, as it happens, I had just finished reading for the second time before I started in on Philbrick's book).

To my mind, there are four principal distinctions between the books. First, TLS was written 25 years after SotMS, and thus benefits from scholarship and archaeological/field work published or conducted in the interim. Second, the focus of TLS is much tighter than that of SotMS; Philbrick's book is primarily about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, whereas Connell - using, to be sure, the LBH both as a lightning rod and a paradigm -- explores larger issues relating to the Plains Indians and their displacement from the West by the admixture of greed, duplicity, "Manifest Destiny", and racism. Third, because of its tighter focus, Philbrick gives a clearer account of the events of June 25, 1876 and his book is much more useful as a reference work; Connell, on the other hand, gives the reader a better sense of the central figures of Custer, Sitting Bull, and Crazy Horse. Finally, there is the matter of quality of writing, and on this score Philbrick and TLS pale in comparison.

Philbrick himself pays tribute to "Son of the Morning Star" when he writes that it "is the book that introduced [him] to the fascinating nooks and crannies of this story and stands in a class by itself as a lyrical exploration of the evidence." Connell's book is so well written that it is, in addition to a classic of history, a work of literature. While TLS is decently written, it is very much a work of "popular history" with its fair share of commonplaces and clichés, slightly clumsy repetitions inserted for the less careful reader, and relatively short sub-chapters or episodes. (I also feel that "the last stand" theme is strained and I suspect that Philbrick and/or the publisher reached for it in order to have a book title better suited for "popular history".)

On the plus side, TLS includes three sections of photographs. It also contains almost 90 pages of notes, which are presented as end-notes in a quasi-narrative fashion as opposed to more formal and conventional footnotes. A more conventional or rigorous citation practice would have eliminated - or corroborated - charges that Philbrick was guilty of either sloppiness or making things up (an issue raised by several previous the store reviewers in connection with Philbrick's report that Crazy Horse enjoined his warriors to hold off on their attack until the soldiers' rifles had been fired a few times and begun clogging and fouling).

If you are interested in the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Philbrick's THE LAST STAND should serve you well. But it does not have the scope or breath-taking grandeur of Connell's "Son of the Morning Star". Thus, if you are confronted with an either/or choice, my advice is to go with Connell.

I want to say up front I got this book as a gift, so thats why it doesn't say "Verified Purchase." I know people sweat the load on that. As an instructor for international military students I use the Battle of Little Big Horn as a case study for combat leadership. As such I have read and studied many different accounts of this battle. This book offers plenty of detail on the actual battle and new insight into the personalities and relationships of the main people involved. There is a lot of insight and accounts from the indian side of the event, which is unusual as many books about this subject provide little from the indian side. I came away from this book with some new insight on not only the battle, but about the people. Good book.

Custer's Last Stand is one of the best-known stories of the American west, indeed, one of the best-known of American history. One could easily fill a room with books about the battle and its players.

Why, then, would anyone write another? This book never answered that fundamental question. As well-written as it is, and as good a read as it is, Philbrick does not give us his vision. He falls short in failing to tell us why his own story of the battle is novel or important. Lacking any particular expertise in the subject, he does not bring particular insight to the story. He does bring substantial writing skill, skill that has already earned him a Pulitzer, and that makes the book worth reading.

It's easy enough to describe his narrative approach. He tries to keep the story focused in time, building a chronology from Custer's Black Hills Expedition of 1874 to the Little Bighorn in 1876. When he wants to provide background, Philbrick uses flashbacks: "Custer was choosing an approach that had worked for him at the Battle of Washita" and then off we go to Washita. That worked well enough, but was used too often for my tastes. There were so many flashbacks that he ultimately sacrificed the temporal tightness he was seeking with the 1874-76 focus.

I would estimate that about four-fifths of the story focuses on Custer and the 7th Cavalry, about one-fifth on Sitting Bull and other Natives. Since Custer is the better-known side of the story, this focus really deserved some explanation: why another Custer book? Philbrick is happy to poke holes in the Custer myth, and to debunk Benteen, Miles, and the other soldiers - - only Grant Marsh, the captain of the supply steamboat, comes out unscathed.

Philbrick wants the term "Last Stand" to apply to the Lakota's defense of their lifestyle as well as to Custer. That's potentially an interesting perspective, but he does not really develop it after the battle of June 1876. He provides a nod to Wounded Knee and other events but his own heart was buried at the Little Bighorn with Custer.

Far from setting the historic world on fire LAST STAND is simply a solid all around book. If you enjoy history and specifically American history this book is definitely worth the time. I enjoyed the attention paid not only to Custer but to Sitting Bull and the Lakota. All of the characters are treated with equal amounts of admiration and scrutiny. My one problem with the book is that it needed more pictures. I know I know, this sounds idiotic but hear me out. The book contains maps of troop movements, portraits of those involved, and some photos of Last stand hill. The trouble with the book is that the topography of the battle plays a massive role in this book and unless you've been there, what this area looks like is really hard to picture. More importantly, it is extremely hard to imagine what the soldiers and native Americans were looking at. There are way to many moving parts to try and picture this battle in your head. That being said, this book was very enjoyable and the equal treatment to all those involved made it even better.

While this isn't really a bad book, it isn't a good choice for any reader, either. For those of you who have never read a book about the Battle of the Little Big Horn, this would be an okay choice, except that it's just not as good as others. I would recommend you read Son of the Morning Star. That book covers the same facts as this one, and so, SO much more of a pleasure to read than this one--which is readable, but not a page turner. Son of the Morning Star does a much better job of bringing the various personalities to life, and is one of those books that is hard to put down. Why read an okay book, when you can read a really great book? For those of us who have read about or researched this topic, there is nothing new in this book.

Nathaniel Philbrick is the highly respected author of In the Heart of the Sea, Mayflower, and Sea of Glory - all fine books. Now he has added to that list with The Last Stand, the story of Custer, Sitting Bull, and the battle of the Little Bighorn. It is an excellent book.

Mr. Philbrick has a knack for describing incidents in a very colorful way that makes the story come alive for the reader. It is a good way of learning history without feeling that you are going through a textbook. He describes the geography of the area where the action takes place and goes into enough detail so you will feel that you actually know the troopers in Custer's 7th Cavalry and can even visualize their horses. Custer himself may come off a little better in this book than he has in others, but Philbrick does not gloss over his shortcomings.

The Last Stand is a large book with a great deal of detail, but it is well worth reading, particularly if you are a fan of American and military history.

As someone who knew very little beyond the "myth" of Custer's Last Stand, I found Philbrick's book to be both thrilling and educational at the same time. Philbrick manages to cut through the numerous conflicting or embellished accounts of The Battle of the Little Bighorn and tells the story of the Last Stand by telling all of the stories around it.

What kept me from giving this book five stars, though, is that I listened to the audio book version. George Guidall does a phenomenal job of "telling" the story and not just "reading" the book. On more than one occasion I became so immersed in the moment that I forgot I was being read to. The weakness comes from the audio book not having the maps of the battlefield that the print version has. As someone not familiar with the area at all, I often found myself lost on matters of troop positioning, tactics, and the some of the more personal events and how they related to each other geographically. If I decide to revisit this book again someday it will definitely be in print.

This is a good, readable book, giving insight into the personalites, strategy, mistakes and good fortune (luck) of the people, both soldiers and Indians, involved in one of the most famous battles ever fought on American soil..A good book...

BUT DON'T READ IN ON KINDLE. While Philbrick does a magnificent job getting into the mind and heart of Custer, Sitting Bull and many others, one picture is still worth a thousand words, and the pictures contained in the hard cover (and soft cover to come) make the book far more meaningful and enjoyable. It's one thing to have Philbrick write about people--and he is good, very good--but to read about them and then look at their eyes...that makes the hard cover much better than the Kindle version.

Also, maps are difficult to read on Kindle, not so in the hard cover...

Amazing story of greed, ego, jealousy, bloodlust, by both soldiers and Indians, senseless desecration, cowardice and, yes, bravery...bravery on both sides.

The battle and the people in the battle come alive---but more so in the hard cover. Read the book--but not on Kindle.

Philbrick is a lay writer when it comes to military affairs and it shows. But what he does bring to the topic is an attorney's eye for the human relationships and the attorney's exhaustive research of the lives of the protagonists. And his sailing background brings the riverboats' contribution to the story to life. Philbrick has done a good job of bringing all the current knowledge to bear, looking into the events leading up to the battle, as well as allowing other voices to be heard in the story. I would fault him in two areas - first that he lets Sitting Bull escape criticism - Sitting Bull was a religious fanatic and a military failure and led his people into a narrowly escaped disaster, and second - he did not compare and contrast Sitting Bull to Red Cloud, the latter of whom succeeded strategically and militarily in almost the same circumstances where Sitting Bull failed. While he hints at it, another area that is new to the history of the subject that was not covered was that the Sioux were already exceeding the carrying capacity of the Yellowstone area and that this had an impact in the events of the story. All in all, this book is an excellent primer on the subject. Those new to the battle and looking for a military analysis of the battle would be wise to read this book then go on to Donovan's book mentioned in the other reviews.

When I was growing up in the early 1960s, George Armstrong Custer was already a joke. Our fathers were all World War II veterans, and they all hated the sort of publicity-hungry officers like Custer who sacrificed their men for "Glory." On TV, Custer was often depicted as a delusional figure with an arrow through his hat. Ice cream stands named themselves "General Custard's Last Stand." He was hardly the revered figure he had been in my grandparents day.

Whenever the old movie about the Last Stand, They Died With Their Boots On, was broadcast, we would sit around and laugh at Errol Flynn's flaming portrayal of our campiest general.

By the end of the 1960s, we were inclined to reevaluate Custer. He seemed like less of a joke, and more of a symbol of an American military leadership that consistently underestimated the fighting ability of non-white enemies and led our forces into disasters like Vietnam.

Just a few years later, we began to see bumper stickers with the slogan "Custer Died For Your Sins" on them. Custer was now viewed as an instrument of genocide in the attempted destruction of the Native American nations on the plains.

By the time I was 18, the Custer image had transformed three times in 13 years.

I decided that if the symbol was so changeable, it might be good to look at the man.

George Armstrong Custer led a multinational, multicultural force against Native peoples grouped around Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in June 1876, a few weeks before the American Centennial. Custer's troops included Indians from three nations. Forty percent of his cavalry troopers were immigrants, 17 percent from Ireland and 12 percent from Germany.

Custer himself had written that if he was an Indian, he would resist living on a reservation.

Instead of wearing an army uniform, Custer dressed in Indian buckskin.

His commander, General Phil Sheridan had endorsed genocide with his remark that the only good Indian he had ever see was a dead Indian, but Custer was known as a negotiator when it came to the Lakota.

The Indians believed that Custer broke from his model of negotiation that election year because he hoped that a victory against heavy odds would propel him to the presidency. Custer, a Democrat, had attacked the Republican Grant administration right before the Battle of Little Bighorn.

In any event, Custer led his force of 600 men against an Indian army three times as large, and he divided his men into three different sections, each too far from the others to offer support.

Was he crazy? Perhaps not.

The United States Army had repeatedly captured civilians and used them as "human shields." Many historians believe that Custer hoped to capture non-combatant women and children and use them as human shields to force Sitting Bull's surrender. He had done this before at the Washita, and it is significant that most of the Native Americans killed in the first phase of the fighting at the Little Big Horn were precisely women and children.

At the Washita, Custer had captured a number of Indian women and the Indian warriors refused to attack him to protect the lives of the women. Custer's officers reportedly later apportioned the women among themselves and boasted later that "Indian women rape easy."

But, of course, we will never know what exactly Custer's plans at Little Big Horn were.

Nathaniel Philbrick is a great writer, but The Last Stand is not a great book. His sea books, and Mayflower are all better. There is little new in here, and the reflections he offers are not as insightful as those he has given in his other excellent works. But if you are looking for a serviceable narrative of an iconic event, this is useful.

An excellent read the only problem one would have is the descriptions of places where the soldiers fought. There are many references as to where RENO is for instance or the ROSE BUD or the CREEK or LAST STAND HILL. But there is no way of grasping where anything is compared to CUSTER or the VALLEY or any other place. The kindle maps are quite pathetic, but don't let that discourage you from this great read.

It's pretty rare that I'll tell you I'm an expert in anything, but Custer and the Little Bighorn has been an obsession for me for two decades or so now. I've read probably a dozen books on the subject, at least, and I've drawn some conclusions about the battle and its impact on American history. Nathaniel Philbrick, a mostly nautical historian, has delved into the subject, and written what's probably the best, and most readable account of the battle. It's a hair over 300 pages long (plus footnotes, appendices, bibliography and index) so it's not a burden to read, and the author doesn't really get on a horse and back one side or the other of the battle. I thought he was a bit biased in the opening of the book, but by the end he's laid out his ideas, and the result is a pretty balanced description of the lead up to the battle, the fight itself, and its aftermath.

Custer was an odd character, and it's difficult for modern writers to study him without turning him into a caricature. He was very much a show-off, and (according to contemporaries who despised him) an philanderer, but he also was a non-drinker, as an example, and despised those who drank alcohol. He seems to have genuinely loved his wife, even if he did fool around, and he was quite loyal to friends and especially family. While others praised his bravery, he himself always insisted that his little brother Tom (who won 2 Medals of Honor in the closing days of the Civil War) was the brave one. His aggressiveness probably got him killed on that fateful day in Southern Montana, but in previous years it had served him well on battlefields in the Civil War and on the Great Plains, fighting the Indians. In his first battle as a brigadier general, he screamed "Come on, you Wolverines!" at the company of cavalrymen who were immediately with him, and led them in a headlong charge into a column of Confederate cavalry, thus thwarting a flank attack on General Meade's lines at Gettysburg. He was always that aggressive, and it always worked, right up until it didn't.

Philbrick's account of the battle is quite well-rounded and interesting, and I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't know much about the battle, but would like to learn. It's a very good book.

When you look at most of the famous battles of American history - Bunker Hill, the Battle of New Orleans, Gettysburg, D-Day and a dozen others - they have one major commonality: they were part of a war. The Battle of Little Bighorn, however, was different; it was not part of a war except in the more indirect sense of the War against Indians, which like the War on Poverty or War on Terrorism, was more of a policy than an actual war.

Little Bighorn was also, from the standpoint of the U.S. military, a total defeat, one that would achieve almost legendary proportions. As with any legend, you need larger-than-life characters, in this case George Custer and Sitting Bull. Nathaniel Philbrick, in his follow-up to Mayflower (which also dealt with conflicts between Indians and settlers), has written The Last Stand which chronicles the events leading up to the battle and the principals involved.

Though both Sitting Bull and Custer are in the book's subtitle, this is a bit more the story of Custer and the army he served with. This probably has to do with the greater amount of documentation about Custer's career. Occasionally brilliant and more than a little daring, Custer also was very ambitious and had little trouble inflating his own image. For those looking for historic parallels, Custer was similar to Douglas MacArthur: both were aggressive, self-agrandizing and would even be defiant to the President they served.

From the standpoint of the Indians, Little Bighorn was one of the last real victories, and one that would be costly in the long run by increasing a pressure on them that they didn't have the strength to withstand. As balanced as Philbrick attempts to be, it is also clear that the Indian tribes were the victims and the U.S. policy towards them was alternately inadequate, patronizing or inhumane.

I liked this book, though occasionally I felt it dragged. Philbrick gives life to many of the individuals on both sides and gives a view of Custer that is more complex than the hero or villain that he is often depicted as. If you are interested in this era, The Last Stand should be a satisfying read.

Just like battles fought today the reason our native brothers were killed is because of made Washington. That's where the decisions were made to allow Americans to take over reservations eliminating peace and the destroying their way of life.

Now many Americans search for spiritual enlightenment and the way of life led by our native brothers for thousands of years. The biggest question in my mind is who really was savage.

I wonder what our country would be like if we learned their ways back then instead of forcing ours upon them and the useless killing all of the Buffalo. Loved the book.

Like most Americans, I've heard about Custer and Little Bighorn my whole life. I even visited the battlefield on a cross country trip a few years ago. So this is the first book I've read about it, I wanted to uncover what all the hoopla is about, why the remote battlefield the weekday I visited was packed with visitors from all over the world? Why is there an entire field of pseudo-scholarship called "Custerology", and fans as devoted as Trekies or Star Wars geeks, who dress up and re-enact the battle and discuss it like scripture? I came to the book with the attitude of "show me", convince me that Custer and Big Horn are really that interesting. Unfortunately, Philbrick assumes the reader has a high level of interest from the start, and early on begins to de-mythologize and uncover the truth behind legend. I was never hooked, never convinced this was worthwhile to learn more about in detail. Compare with Philbrick's masterpiece In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, where he spends a long time upfront about Nantucket and whaling and Quakers before starting into the story of the whale-ship Essex, by which time you are transported into a richly detailed world. He never captured my attention, and I think the reason is Philbrick himself is fairly new to the subject, unlike his childhood home of New England covered in his other books.

Because of the books revisionist take, it inevitably, and probably accurately, comes across not as legend but tragedy, not as heroic but stupid, not as predestined but a series of contingencies. To its credit it's interesting from a military buffs perspective, Philbrick skillfully re-creates the minute by minute battlefield action, which comprises the majority of the books length. Philbrick also focuses on individual personalities and inter-personal politics as driving forces, supported by primary source material, which is effective. Yet I kept thinking "who cares." Little Bighorn didn't change much in the Plains Indian Wars that wouldn't have happened anyway, if Custer had won it wouldn't have changed much because larger forces were at work, this was not a pivotal battle on which history hinged. Thus we are left with an historical event that has more appeal to pop culture mythology - the story of flamboyant rare bird who "bit off more than he can chew" and got his comeuppance, a classic American trope. In that sense the story was and still is best told in fictional drama, like in the film Little Big Man. For those seeking a more factual account Philbrick is a good option, but the bare truth is not as powerful or psychologically satisfying as the legend in this case.

The last time I read a book about Custer was when I picked up a short biography as a Jr High student - too long ago. He'd been mostly out of sight/out of mind since then, until I heard about Nathaniel Philbrick's latest. As a big fan of Mayflower, I thought this would be a great opportunity to refresh myself on this larger-than-life figure.

In The Last Stand Mr Philbrick is at his best in creating opinions about the key players. Many reviewers criticize his depiction of Custer as an egomaniac, but to me he came off less as an "egomaniac" and more of a hard-charging, ambitious leader - the traits may be very similar, I suppose. The biggest impact, though, was in his depictions of Reno and Benteen. I found myself actually getting angry at those two - for pettiness, for incompetence, for a host of reasons. The author's attempts to be (or at least appear) unbiased towards these two are not subtle at all, but there is no doubt where Mr Philbrick assigns responsibility in the 7th's failure at Little Bighorn.

That said, the narrative of Reno's charge, stall, and retreat is the best storytelling in the book. It was there that the book went from semi-interesting to captivating. However, the majority of the book, for me, suffered from a constantly shifting timeline. Being too linear is boring, but I felt Mr Philbrick went to the well several times too often in visiting the past to explain the current behavior. Certainly in the case of Custer's last stand, in the absence of US Army survivors who knew what Custer planned and ordered, one has to use past behavior to surmise what decisions may have played out. Elsewhere, though, it got to be a bit much.

All said The Last Stand was a decent survey of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the events leading up to it, and the Lakota's own last stand. For the most part it's not as well told a story as Mayflower up to Reno's charge, but really comes into its own in the final scenes.

Philbrick is brilliant as always writing with detail while keeping the story moving so as not to lose the readers interest. He covers all credible narratives of what happened that fateful day at the Little Big Horn. Custer, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Benteen, Reno come alive!

Nathaniel Philbrick is one of America's best and most popular historians. An expert in naval matters he turns his attention to the Battle of the Little Bighorn fought on June 25, 1876. This battle has spilled more bottles of ink than any other single military engagement ever fought on American soil. Philbrick the author of such bestsellers as "Mayflower"and "The Sea of Glory" has done an excellent job of writing, researching and telling the familiar story of "Custer's Last Stand" with new insights on the battle. Among the fascinating lead players in this book:
1. George Armstrong Custer (1838-1876) was a flamboyant genuine hero of the Civil War. He won the crucial cavalry battle at Gettysburg and was given the surrender table at Appamattox by General Sheridan. His brother Tom Custer who died with him at the Little Bighorn won two Congressional Medals of Honor during the Civil War. Custer was a, well read man who graduated last in his West Point Class. His best friend was Shakespearean actor Lawerence Barrett. His gods were fame, glory and power. Custer wanted to win a big victory over the Indians in 1876 so he could star on the lecture circuit back East. He loved the smell of battle and was fun loving, unorthodox and clannish. Custer was criticized for his actions at the battle of the Washita in 1868 and his military service in the Black Hills in 1874 forcing Indians out of their sacred region. He was a womanizer but his wife Libby and he loved each other. The couple was childless. She became the Custer spin doctor following "Audie's" death at Little Big Horn. Custer was a native of Ohio; his brothers Boston and Tom died with him on June 25. His body was mutilated; he died with a smile on his face that is mysterious. He has become a mythic figure in American history.
2. Sitting Bull was the leader of the Sioux and Cheyenne warriors who defeated the 7th Cavalry on June 25. He, like Custer, died a violent death being murdered by Indian police from the reservation in 1890. He was a brave warrior who had killed a Crow Chief in his youth. He was also a spiritual chief dancing the Sun Dance and seeing visions of his people's future. He made one tour with the Buffalo Bill Wild West Show and was famous.
3. Custer had enemies in the 7th Cavalry most notably Marcus Reno and Fredrick Benteen. These two men despised Custer. They both failed to unite their forces with Custer on the day of the battle. Reno retreated and fought against the Indians despite his drunken condition. Benteen did not bring the needed ammunition and supplies to Custer in time to save lives. One reason for the defeat was the divided command. Alfred Terry was the overall commander of the expedition but did not participate in the battle. Nor did General George Crook force was was seeking to reach the 7th in time to save the day.
4. Grant Marsh was the riverboat pilot who transported the army up the Yellowstone River; he was the first man to report about the disaster.
5. Many Indian warriors are profiled in this long book. We see pictographs of the battle and learn about the warrior culture of the plains Indians. Their survival depended on the buffalo but that beast had been slaughtered by the white hunters who roamed the West.
Phibrick is to be commended for letting the reader hear the Indian side of the story. The book has over 100 pages of footnotes, an extensive bibliography and beautiful black and white and color photos of the Little Bighorn region. Helpful maps are also included.
If you are only going to read one book on the Little Bighorn battle this is the one! Excellent!

Author Nathaniel Philbrick has done an outstanding job with the research and the writing of this book. If you are a fan of the American West, a student of military history, or you just are curious about the days of exploration in the USA ... this book belongs on your bookshelf. My only regret is that I didn't buy it through the store for a cut rate price. I picked it up on a whim while travelling through airports - but it was still a great discovery.

The book attempts to make a fair and balanced portrayal of the two main protagonists at the Little Bighorn ... George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull. I will say personally that this book has changed my mind about both men. In fact, my respect for both men increased considerably after I thought about what really happened out there in the West.

In the case of Custer, this book does a good job of exposing both his strengths and his numerous weaknesses. In no way do I excuse some of the behavior that Custer participated in - the book describes the Battle of Washita in some detail. Nathaniel Philbrick points out some of the incidents that led to Custer having a bad reputation with the Lakota and Cheyenne Indians. Not to mention loathing and disrespect from some of his own subordinates - and occasionally his C.O. as well. But in spite of all of Custers faults, it is also clear that the man had exceptional strengths. This book changed my mind .... it's a fair argument that Custer was one of the bravest men who served in the Seventh Cavalry of the US Army. I don't want to spoil the surprise, but if you read the book you will discover that Custer came very close to WINNING the battle of the Little Bighorn. What the Seventh Cavalry really needed at that battle - and didn't have - was TWO George Armstrong Custers. Two men who could deliver a swift and bold attack with utter fearlessness. If Major Reno had carried out Custer's orders without any hesitation or caution, it's quite possible that Sitting Bull's village would have been routed and Custer would have won. These words come not from the American survivors of the battle, but rather from the Indians' account. However, the timing and execution of surprise attacks is absolutely crucial, and the small window of advantage rapidly eroded into a disastrous situation. You can read the book and form your own opinions.

Likewise, I was impressed with the Seventh Cavalry - after really thinking about all they went through. These men went through great hardships on the edge of the frontier, especially with long grueling marches, slim rations, freezing temperatures, and a dangerous enemy. It's true that the whole operation could be called into question, but the soldiers themsevles were just following orders. In the end, the Seventh Cavalry faced every man's worst fear and greatest nightmare ... death at the hands of an enemy who had a bloodlust to kill, showed no mercy, and was numerically superior. If you read what happened in the lives of the men who survived that battle - it's clear they could never go back into normal life unchanged.

The book does a very fine job of describing the leadership of Sitting Bull with the Lakota's, as well as many other tribes of the Plains Indians who joined his village. Sitting Bull was actually a remarkable person who backed up his leadership role through many great accomplishments in his life. His image seems neglected these days - but his prowess was considrable.

The book also does a good job of describing ancillary characters and events that led up to the Bighorn. I found the events surrounding the Battle of the Rosebud and Crook to be particularly eye opening. Crook was a person who played a major role in the hunt for Geronimo in the Southwest. But his life on the Plains tends to be a neglected part of the story. This book makes clear that Crazy Horse almost wiped out Crook at the Rosebud ... Crook stared into the eyes of death and was badly shaken by what he saw. I doubt that he was ever the same afterwards.

Overall a great book that dispels many "illusions" about the West, Custer, and the Lakotas. Hope you enjoy it too!!!

This book was rather a disappointment for me. Many years ago I read Nathaniel Philbrick's The Mayflower, which also delved into white/native relations, and I absolutely loved it. Despite filling it to the tips of every page with detail, he managed to keep the story well paced and engaging throughout. I wish I could say the same about The Last Stand.

This latest work centers, according to its subtitle, around Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The front end of the book spends a great deal of time and detail enlightening the reader as to the previous exploits of George Armstrong Custer and the shaky relationship that they gained him with the army. I did enjoy this portion of the book, as Custer was the major figure which drew me to the title. Also, I appreciated the fact that Philbrick gave a lot of ink, and well balanced narrative, to the lives of the Indian chiefs and warriors who made up the other side of the story. However, the book went off on rather a bit of a tangent once you actually began the run up to the Little Big Horn.

Philbrick regales his readers with the details, and by this I mean every single meticulously plotted movement that the army made in pursuit of the plains Indians who were refusing to move onto the reservations. When their progress finally brings them to the famed showdown on the banks of the Little Bighorn River, Custer is nowhere to be seen nor heard from. One thing that I learned from this book was that there was more than one battle front, but given the book's title one would think that the narrative would focus on Custer's role in his famed Last Stand. Instead, the balance of the tale centers around the other two prongs of the attack, one by the drunkard Marcus Reno and the other by Frederick Benteen. Custer's role in the battle is dealt with in far less detail, which was confusing for me, as this is one of only a couple of books which I have read on the subject. Philbrick uses his focus on the other aspects of the siege of the Indian village along the banks of the famed river to illustrate his point that Custer watched from an over looking bluff as the other commanders, who were supposed to be his support, failed spectacularly. Far from painting Custer as a martyred hero, he is drawn as a man who hoped to ride his own horse to glory on the backs of two other commanders who's men he should have ridden to support.

I would highly recommend this book to those who are students of the battle and know Custer's side of the struggle well. For such a reader, the level of detail would be a plus, and the interesting angles taken by Philbrick to refute and support many of the legends surrounding the events of those days would no doubt be of great interest. Also, do not listen to the audio for this one. George Guidall, one of my favorite narrators, does a fine job, but the printed book is full of maps and pictures which would have made the detailed battle movements much easier to follow. Or, listen to the audio with good maps of the area (or a copy of the book) in front of you.

About a month ago, my wife and I took a road trip with some good friends through many of the Westerns states. We visited Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Nebraska. One of the highlights was a visit to the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument.

Every time I visit a historic site, I end up buying at least one book about the events that took place at the location. I wanted to buy only one book about the battle because we had already visited so many sites that I was weighing down the motorhome. The store at the National Monument had dozens upon dozens of books on Custer, the battle, Crazy Horse, and Sitting Bull. I spent some time going through them and ended up taking two to the clerk for a recommendation. The two books were The Last Stand, Custer, Sitting Bull, and The Battle of Little Bighorn, by Nathaniel Philbrick, and Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors:, by Stephen E. Ambrose.

The clerk had obviously read both books and told me that the Ambrose book was a duel biography of Custer and Crazy Horse, while Philbrick's book was more focused on the battle instead of the men. I had read many books by Ambrose and almost bought it, but at the last moment decided I wanted to learn about the battle.

I should have known better. When I study the founding period, I prefer to read about the Constitutional Convention, rather than the Revolution. When I study the Civil War, I prefer political histories like Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin to books dedicated to specific battles or the war in general. The Ambrose book would probably have been a better choice for me. Not for everyone, however. My guess is that anyone interested in the battles will be enthralled by the detail in The Last Stand. Philbrick does an excellent job of describing the various engagements by Custer, Reno, and Benteen--giving the reader almost hour-by-hour accounts. This would be a great book to read prior to visiting the battlefield and taking the driving tour. Unfortunately, I didn't get to The Last Stand until I was home, so I didn't have the advantage of walking the landscape to make Philbrick's book come to life.

I did have a couple disappointments with The Last Stand. The explanation of Sitting Bull's battle strategy seemed to be presented piecemeal, and the conclusion of the book came across as hurried and disjointed. Otherwise, this is a exceptionally well-researched book that is very readable. Although I did not buy Crazy Horse and Custer, I feel that they would be great companion books for Little Bighorn enthusiasts.

Many Americans incorrectly believe that the Battle of the Little Bighorn left no survivors, but there were countless men and women who survived. They were able to recall details of a battle that remains a quintessential moment in American history, but they were Indians. One Lakota warrior recalled that the fighting had lasted no longer than a hungry man needed to eat his lunch. In historical context, June 21, 1876, the day that George Armstrong Custer and nearly 300 soldiers and scouts of the Seventh Calvary were killed in battle with Indian warriors led by Sitting Bull, was as significant in its time as was September 11, 2001.

Still, today there is far more unknown about the battle than known. Was Custer foolish, unlucky, or betrayed by fellow officers? Did he die immediately, or did he fight courageously? Did the battle last minutes or hours? Questions abound and answers are few. Perhaps that explains why the life of George Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn remain fertile ground for historians and writers.

Nathaniel Philbrick, author of MAYFLOWER, SEA OF GLORY, and IN THE HEART OF THE SEA, has shifted his focus to the American west with THE LAST STAND. Recounting the battle in a clear and neutral account, he adds to the rich history of the battle and the participants. Custer, Sitting Bull, Major Marcus Reno, and Captain Frederick Benteen are portrayed as neither heroes nor villains. Each made decisions in the fog of battle that were closely examined in 1876 and continue to be debated to this day. Students of the Little Bighorn may find some new information in the book. For example, Philbrick reports that Sitting Bull did not physically lead his troops in battle but exhorted his minions a distance from the battlefield. Generally, THE LAST STAND offers no "smoking gun" to those seeking answers to the mysteries of the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

George Custer is the focus of THE LAST STAND. While Philbrick spends little time on Custer's Civil War battle experience and its influence on his military career, he offers readers insight into the enigmatic soldier who is certainly one of history's most recognized military figures. Custer was obsessed with cleanliness. He washed his hands constantly and carried a toothbrush on him at all times. He was a gambler and a womanizer, but did not drink. While known to the Indians as "yellow hair" for his long flowing locks, he fought his final battle with his hair closely shorn. Custer had lived an incredible life when one considers that he died in battle at age 36.

Philbrick focuses his historical writing on the role that major events have in shaping the American experience. The portrayal of the battle shifts among the Indians, Custer's troops, and Benteen and Reno. Each of the four sum of the parts behaved in a fashion that led to the final conclusion of the battle. Had any of the four behaved differently, the battle may well have ended with a different outcome. A victorious George Custer may have influenced American history in a far different fashion than did the martyrdom of his death.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn and the life of George Custer remain one of history's mysteries and myths. Custer has been portrayed in movies as an idealist, madman, and tactician who made fatal errors in June 1876. THE LAST STAND is a worthy addition to Custerology, an unsolved mystery that historians seek to solve today and certainly will continue to do so in the future.

For any reader who is interested in U.S. history, I highly recommend this novel. Mr. Philbrick describes the events that culminated in Custer's Last Stand. George Armstrong Custer was a military leader who craved glory at any expense. A man who made enemies during his military career that resulted in passive insubordination by some of his officers that contributed to his ultimate defeat. Custer was so bent on engaging the Indians that he ignored his supply line, the condition of his troops and horses and the lack of intelligence regarding the enemy he was facing. All of these elements collided with a huge gathering of the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians along the Little Big Horn River to form a perfect storm on June 25, 1876.
The author does an excellent job in portraying the Indian perspective of the conflict between the U S Government and the Indians' will to survive as the frontier pushed westward. As he points out, the Battle at the Little Big Horn was as much a last stand for Custer as it was for the Sioux and Cheyenne under the leadership of Sitting Bull. Mr. Philbrick concludes that "Custer and Sitting Bull were both great warriors. But Sitting Bull was something more. He was a leader, a prophet, and a politician."
Reading this historical account of The Last Stand will enlighten the reader as to what really happened on that fateful day in 1876, only a few days before our nation's centennial celebration.

I teach a course on the Battle of the Little Bighorn at a local college, and was interested to read this, as I had read and enjoyed Mr. Philbrick's HEART OF THE SEA about the whaleship Essex. I very much enjoyed this book, also. I only noticed a couple things. At one place, he talked about weapons and called it "ordinance." Ordinance with an "i" is a law. Weapons are "ordnance," without the "i." Also, when discussing the Battle of the Washita, it was placed in Kansas, while it actually took place near the present day Cheyenne, Oklahoma. Other than that, the book was very informative, and I was glad to note he did not hold Custer up as the infallible hero, but placed blame where it should be placed, whether it be Custer, Reno, Benteen, etc. A good read, recommended.

I chose this book to learn of an often ignored American historical period. The book was good but ran dry at times. I'm a big fan of the author's work, and while exceptional effort must have gone into this book, the detail in this book is so in-depth that one can't help but wonder how it's possible to know all of this detail that is presented as fact. Or in some instances, maybe drawn conclusions are presented as facts. And while there is an attempt at objectivity you can see opinions of culpability coming through. Overall I would definitely read this book for its historical education. This is my opinion of what I've read here. I have the greatest respect for the author and his effort.

Chronicling one of the legendary events of American history, author Nathaniel Philbrick is the latest writer to charge into the valley of the Little Big Horn with his 2010 work "The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn." With more than 100 books on the subject dating back a century, it's yet another attempt to decipher an obsessive, polarizing saga. Military buffs across the globe guard the legend like an endangered species. Similar to historic chess matches, they question every move, their opinions inevitably based on personal or political philosophy.

Philbrick, a popular Bostonian author of seafaring history including Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War and In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, comes ashore with this vivid reworking of the battle. A writer with amazing skill, he's perhaps too qualified to trod this beaten path. But follow the trail he does, and he provides fascinating opinions while expertly weaving through the battle's events. If you've never before read about Little Big Horn, Philbrick's work, in addition to Evan S. Connell's Son of the Morning Star: Custer and The Little Bighorn, is a great place to start.

An event known to all in one form or another, the Little Big Horn Battle took place in June of 1876 in southeast Montana. Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer led the Seventh Calvary against a huge Native American village where Sitting Bull was a spiritual leader, defying a dubious U.S. order to live on reservations. Custer fatefully separated his men into a curious three-pronged attack. Ultimately, the three prongs were overwhelmed by poor strategy and huge numbers of warriors (anywhere from 900-3,000). Custer's prong, riding ghost-like to the north over miles of hilly terrain, is killed to a man, their naked bodies discovered two days later around Last Stand Hill. The mystery of what happened to Custer is the root of the enduring fascination.

Philbrick's investigation is impressive, loaded with brilliant detail making the battle hum with suspense. Several of his stances are unique. His argument on Brig. General Alfred Terry, the man in charge from afar at Yellowstone River, being quietly complicit in the disaster is an interesting conclusion. Philbrick also embraces rumors of Major Marcus Reno (leader of the first attack prong) being drunk on the battlefield, inspiring a variety of erratic decisions causing panic and retreat. He's not one to salute Major Frederick Benteen (leader of the second prong) either, insisting his refusal to commit to the battle until the last possible moment was negligent, even though his uncommon bravery allowed the Reno Hill siege, where surviving soldiers retreated, to remain intact.

What I love about Philbrick's work is his terrific editorial observances. Reno, leading the initial charge, was confronted with one of the most incredible occurrences in American history. As Philbrick notes, he was forced to prove a meager force of 140 men could charge a village of 10,000 and cause them to panic. The fact it had never before been attempted is not commonly stated. Philbrick, like many, has no love loss for Reno, but makes it abundantly clear Custer hung him out to dry. The author also recounts what could be a dirty secret of the battle, supported by recollections of Crow scouts. They claim Custer viewed Reno's battle from Weir's Point, pleased at the failure of the charge, thus opening the door for his own individual glory. Such a claim incenses military enthusiasts.

Philbrick also seriously considers Private Peter Thompson's claims, which have been discounted by most historians. His eyewitness observations (Thompson's horse gave out while traveling with Custer) support the belief Custer did not immediately attack the village and waited to capture women and children during their retreat. It was a similar tactic he used during the 1869 Battle of Washita (Washita Memories: Eyewitness Views of Custer's Attack on Black Kettle's Village).

Many have compared Philbrick's work to Jim Donovan's 2009 A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn - the Last Great Battle of the American West. I enjoyed Donovan's tome, though it was mired in a number of stale battle myths. Philbrick shakes out the mothballs and views evidence away from the shadows of tradition. Where he stumbles is his attempt to interpret the Last Stand battle, including a surreal action by Custer's brother Tom and the purpose of the Deep Ravine retreat. Trying to conclude overly-detailed actions based on the dubious placement of bodies (marked to this day with white stone markers) is fruitless. Sometimes, it's best to allow mysteries to remain.

Philbrick's refreshing account is not only a testament to his breathtaking writing, but to one of the most haunting confrontations in U.S. history. As he accurately notes, modern-day leaders would do well to recall the decisions leading to this most shocking of disasters.

I had the nicest history teachers when I was in school. Unfortunately, that didn't make classes interesting and I am not a historical scholar. But every time I read one of Philbrick's books, I am transported to another time and place.

The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn is an alternating narrative of General Custer and Sitting Bull, describing their lives, their visions, and goals, as well as the events leading to, and following the Battle of the Little Bighorn. It is personal, including snippets of journals, pictograms, and interviews of many participants, stitched together in a vivid tapestry of events. We see the perspectives of the Native American and the US Army, and learn how their cultures shaped their decisions.

Both the Native Americans and the US officers and soldiers questioned the wisdom of their leaders. Infighting occurred at the top levels on both sides. Personalities clashed. This is presented in the men's own words. Because there is no solid evidence of Custer's fate, Philbrick constructs from his heavily researched sources a story line of the very end of the battle.

There are copious notes in the back of the book. I was sometimes so engrossed in the notes I had to use two bookmarks. This is a great read, whether you're a historian or just want to read a good book. And it includes maps and photos that bring it this close to where you are right now.

Historical Background

In May of 1876, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer was ordered to lead a military action against the free Plains Native Americans who were not yet contained within Indian reservations. The Americans were constantly breaking their treaties with the Native Americans. Also, many Native Americans chafed under the order to confine themselves to reservations. Groups of Native Americans from different tribes resisted U.S. Government commands.

One of the main motivations for the military push in 1876 to break the Native American resistance was that gold mines were active in the black hills of the Dakota Territory. The Black Hills Gold Rush in 1874 caused an influx of miners and of course caused tensions with the local Native American population.

This was a tense time in American History. The American frontier was expanding and the Native Americans were resisting that expansion. Their way of life was being taken from them bit by bit. The Battle of The Little Bighorn (River) was a case in point.

Custer had gained national prominence due to his command during the Civil War and in his skirmishes with Native Americans between 1866 and 1876. The U.S. Government took on a role of the great civilizer, desiring to spread democracy and improve native populations. In the case of the Native Americans, this idea of "Manifest Destiny" had horrible consequences for them. Manifest Destiny can be summed up as follows:

And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us. (Journalist John L. O'Sullivan)

The U.S. Government was protecting its own interests of expansion to make room for its burgeoning population and to take control of natural resources. In this case, the discovery of gold in the Dakota Black Hills provided ample excuse for the government to protect mining operations and and settlers. Where the Native American populations resisted these interests, the government used the military to force the Native Americans out.

Book Highlights

In this book by Nathaniel Philbrick, we get a detailed account of the approach of Custer with the U.S. Army towards the Indian camp led by such Indian notables as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull. The total population of Native Americans was about 8,000, while the group of soldiers with Custer was about 750. They were basically outnumbered 10:1. Of course some of the population included women and children, but historians estimate that the number of male warriors was from 1,500 to 2,500.

The main difference between a dry retelling of the historical record and Philbrick's book is that Philbrick manages to paint a vivid picture of the soldiers and warriors. He provides personal stories and anecdotes. Some of the stories involve soldiers who were drunks for example or Native Americans who could ride a horse bareback while firing a gun on enemy combatants.

Some of the book covers politics, specifically the politics of Native American policies. Philbrick refrains from opinion in this area, sticking with the historical facts of how the U.S. Government treated the Native Americans and how the Native Americans by this point had all but given up their resistance. It is clear from this book that the "last stand" was not merely for Custer, but for Native Americans as a whole.

By this point, the U.S. was rapidly expanding west and there was really no stopping it. The U.S. allowed settlements and those settlements needed protection.

Large sections of the book were devoted to the experience of war. The U.S. Cavalry was disorganized and undermanned. While the Native American warriors were not skilled tactically, they made up for this in sheer numbers. Their approach was guerrilla warfare and stealth, while the American approach was modeled after Civil War tactics using such things as barricades. Both sides were guilty of atrocities. The Native Americans would often desecrate the bodies by scalping or dismembering. The cavalry too participated in desecrating bodies.

Book Recommendation

Overall, this was an enjoyable book. It was slow in some parts, but the book did present a clear and understandable narrative of this historic battle. If you enjoy 19th Century military stories and U.S. History, you will enjoy this book. It gives the reader a solid introduction to the topic and provides references where the reader can explore the subject further.

Here is what Philbrick wrote in the "Notes" section at the end of this book: "Writing a balanced narrative involving two peoples with two widely different worldviews is an obvious challenge, especially when it comes to the nature of the evidence ... I have looked not only to written and oral testimony but also to visual evidence, including photographs, pictographs, and maps."

I'm one reader that was very, very impressed with this book and I think Philbrick certainly met the challenge he mentions above. This was indeed a very balanced account that used a copious amount of source material, but the reader never feels weighed down or overwhelmed by it all. In fact, it almost read like a novel, the narrative to compelling and engrossing that I truly could not put the book down. I wouldn't call myself a history buff --- although the older I get the more I enjoy learning about the past --- and I can't say that I ever had much interest in Custer or the whole Little Big Horn thing, but this book really made those historical events come alive, and in turn it's inspired me to read more about this period of American history, particularly anything about the Native American tribes of that time.

I had never read anything by this author before, although I'd seen his books on the shelves for many years, but I'm so impressed with this book that I plan to read something else by him. Philbrick's writing style is engaging and he obviously did a ton of research while writing this book. And it shows, both in the regular chapters and in the notes section in the back. I feel like indeed gave a balanced account of the events before, during, and after the battle. Even if you aren't a huge history buff, I think you'll find this to be a spellbinding book

History is constantly being rewritten and in this case - Amen! Just reading the research notes is almost 100 pages. Few books are as well-researched and fewer as well written. All of the leaders of the Seventh Calvary sound like characters out of "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe. They are all out for themselves and suffer from petty bickering. Custer was an egomanic, but also a brillant leader of men in combat. The book gives a clearer picture of Custer and the battle than anything I have ever read. I took a Native American History course and Custer was the focus of study. He was out to win the glory of the battle and died as an American West icon. The real villian of the story was a nearly always drunk Major Marcus Reno. Captain Frederick Benteen played his fair share in the military disaster, but rallied the men and saved many, despite taking a nap in the middle of a battle.
If there is one undisputable noble hero from the story, it is Sitting Bull. Not only are both sides of the battle examined, but all personalities are dissected. Sitting Bull was not only a brave military leader of his people, but a dominating politican. The aftermath of the battle and the demise of the Plains Indians is also detailed. The Last Stand chronicles the battle, the personalities, the politics and the end of the Wild West. A great read.

We all know the story, Custer goes to find the natives, he is out matched and they all die.

I was appalled at the lack of intelligence that Custer used. He and all of his men are dead because of his own Hubris. The author did such a great job, providing us with all of the background information about the events that led up to the Battle of Little Big Horn.

It was well balanced, well researched and well organized. He doesn't just give lots of facts, but writes nice prose and tells a very nice story.

I think this is the leading book on the subject of the Battle of Little Big Horn

Like most Americans, I grew up being taught in the classroom that Custer was some sort of hero and key to America's expansion in the West. This book provides a very detailed picture of perhaps what he really was and how his unbridled arrogance led to his own death and the death of hundreds of other soldiers. I found this book to be very balanced- presenting both the viewpoint of the soldiers and other officers who served with Custer as well as the Lakota and Cheyenne warriors who fought him. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking to learn more about this historical event.

The book starts out very, very nicely, but about halfway through it becomes exceedingly tedious, almost describing minute-by-minute descriptions of the multitude of skirmishes in that battle. I may have missed it because I was scanning fairly quickly the last half of the book, but if the author did not include his own thoughts on what Custer was up to that day that was a terrible oversight. With his extensive library and field research, certainly he could have written a chapter on his personal perspective.

When I first started reading the book, I enjoyed the flashbacks and/or digressions from the main story but by the middle of the book they, too, had become tedious. I recommend it as a reference book for all who are interested in this subject. Whether I would recommend it as a first-time read of the battle, I don't know. Probably not. For the most part, I did enjoy the prose. I am happy I have it but not sure if I could recommend it.

This is one is for grown-ups. It's a quick read; it does not get bogged down. However, there is so much material (and well told!) that most of the book is "the good part" -- much to my family's annoyance.

At the beginning of the book, Nathaniel Philbrick seems to be going to work on a theory that the Battle of Little Bighorn was a last stand for Custer, but it was also a last stand for the Cheyenne and Lakota peoples. I don't think that was developed.

This book describes a US Cavalry culture of grandstanding and rivalries and "ask for forgiveness, not permission." It pulls in a lot of context, expecially from Custer's victory at the Washita a decade prior to Little Bighorn. Showing how that battle shaped Custer's expectations was one of the strengths of this book.

Nobody involved in the battle were angels; this book takes a look at the personalities and decisions and attempts to show the web of interconnected assumptions and miscommunications. Three sections of photographs and pictures. All were heroes, all were villains.

Good maps for every chapter. Readable. It does discuss unsavory things like how the wounded soldiers were tortured to death and the bodies of the dead were mutilated. However, this is a fairly tame treatment and the abuse is not relished or celebrated.

*** I visited the battlefield this summer, and posted a few photos. This was great to read before the trip. ***

The Last Stand is not only comprehensive well rounded study of The Battle of Little Big Horn, but author Nathaniel Philbrick also gives a near exhaustive study of the context surrounding the infamous battle. I was drawn to the book due to my enjoyment of Philbrick's other works, but the subject matter itself was so engaging that I was surprised at how it held my interest. Deftly told in his characteristically gripping style, the details of the story never become tedious or overwhelming, but instead the story is engrossing throughout. Readers are treated to eye witness accounts and analysis, photos, appendices, and maps. The only complaint is that the sheer volume of information leaves little hope of any quality of retention. Many soldiers' lives and battle roles are detailed, the ripple effects of the battles conclusions are thoroughly examined, and we get personal and details of the main player's lives and personalities, etc... However, in my opinion the author shrewdly balanced both sides of the battle without caving to opinion or sacrificing his narrative. Anyone interested in Custer, Sitting Bull or the Battle itself will not finish the book disappointed.

If you're like me, you love history because you want to know what happened and why. If you're like me, you also hate history because it drives you crazy to have to sort through a morass of contradictory and confused eye-witness claims. That is why I could never be a professional historian.

But Nathaniel Philbrick does an admirable job of showing what it looks like when history is done right. The Battle of the Little Bighorn happened more than a hundred years ago, and is a prime case of the frustrating kind of historical event: The many participants were from very different cultures/ languages, were exhausted at the time of action (which distorts memories), and each had their own personal concerns to consider when it came time to make their statements about what had happened. Despite the confusion, in Philbrick's work the many divergent assertions are acknowledged and woven together into a tenuous but plausible narrative, with a satisfying thoroughness. It gives a reader hope that the truth that is out there can still be fruitfully pursued, even when there is so much disagreement and ambiguity.

The main area that still left me unsatisfied was the graphics. Sure, it is nice to have photos of the main players, from distant occasions when they posed to be photographed. But I don't get much feel for the topography which is the major player in the event--the interplay of dirt, trees, and river that made military units waste so much time looking around for each other and wondering what to do next. Unless readers have personally walked all parts of the battlefield they will not get much information from vague two-dimensional hand-sketched maps. Would it really have been so hard for the author to get a military-grade contour map? Or more bird's-eye photos to go with the verbal descriptions?

I for one will be looking now for some of the many movies made about Little Bighorn, to get a better feel for the environmental setting of what I have just spent so many hours reading about. With outside help from some graphical context like that, I highly recommend this book.

I chose this rating because I can see the research that was required to write this book and was impressed with the way he put all of this information together to make an absorbing read that kept me interested from the start to the finish.

The army was a close knit group, particularly in that period, and as such they closed ranks when any controversy arose. As a result, unless any new information comes to light, we will never know the full and accurate story of the battle. I was fascinated how the author brought the personalities to life and how they interacted with one another, and from these personalities one can perhaps form an opinion as to why certain incidents occurred in terms of following orders to a tee....or not. If there was any criticism it would be how the author constantly went back in time and then forward in time on a number of occasions however, I can see by doing so, he was forming a connection in history with the main story.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in military history and to some extent the myth of the American West. I would love to see another adaptation to the Silver Screen of this battle using the thesis of this book. Overall it was a "bloody good read".

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Philbrick's tae on Custer's last stand. His emphasis was on the events surrounding Custer's demise. This was my only disappointment. Since there were no survivors and very few actual witnesses (other than some Indians) we don't really know what happened in the last moments.
Well researched and interesting.

Custer was by temperment a gambler, in this case in people's lives. Here Custer is portrayed as a brave blowhard, and two subordinates that did not support him. The result is that Custer charged into the heart of a vast Indian village, and was promptly destroyed. Reno could have been a little more reserved with the bottle, and might have walked into the village. However, Reno had some courage reservations and dismounted and formed a battle line that was also almost destroyed. Benteen wiled away an hour before going to his assistance. His and Reno's forces could have been destroyed.

What this very enlightening book shows is that Custer should have been given a office job to keep him from wasting his troops. Gibbon or Terry should have been allowed to go after the Sioux. They would have been a more patient opponent, and could have prevented a massacre.

This was a good read and the book flowed evenly. I think it will provide one with the better understanding in Sioux thinking and religion. This book read quickly.

"Custer had always lived life at a frenetic pace. He thrived on sensation. Whether it was courting Libbie in the midst of the Civil War, learning taxidermy during his first expedition in the northern plains, or writing his articles while surrounded by his dogs and listening to his band, he needed to be in the midst of an often self-created uproar. But by the night of June 21, at the age of thirty-six, Custer was finding it difficult to marshal the old enthusiasm."

Burdened with financial troubles, having, in his flamboyant fashion, gravely offended the President of the United States and made enemies of several fellow officers, Custer needed a big win. As we all know, he didn't get it. "Custer's transformation into an American myth had much to do with the timing of the disaster," Philbrick writes. The news of Custer's battalion's total annihilation reached the public on July 7, 1876, in the midst of centennial celebrations.

New England author Philbrick's thorough and lively book points out that for the Indians, "the battle marked the beginning of their own Last Stand." Measures that Congress would not have funded previously allowed the army to mount a vigorous assault and within a few years all but one of the major tribal leaders were living on reservations. The exception was Sitting Bull, who held out until 1881 and even then did not go gently.

Most of the book revolves around the battle itself. Conflicting accounts were produced, it seems, by just about everyone who was in the vicinity. "Our actions are not determined by any one cause; they are the fulfillment of who we are at that particular moment. After that moment passes, we continue to evolve, to change, and our memories of that moment inevitably change with us as we live with the consequences of our past actions, consequences we were unaware of at the time."

Philbrick picks his way through myriad narratives, piecing together a sequential picture of events from concurring versions, educated speculation and what evidence remains - including an archaeological study which found that the Indians had superior guns in addition to their thousands of arrows.

He gives us a vivid picture of the terrain - its old riverbank hollows and bluffs offering limited and deceptive visibility - and cuts between Indian and Army viewpoints, intensifying the narrative pace and providing a clearer vision of unfolding events. He fleshes out the participants - particularly, but not only, Custer and Sitting Bull - with letters and accounts from their friends, family, enemies, and selves.

Naturally - just as many hindsight accounts took note of omens, prophetic last words, etc. - Philbrick looks at the many ways disaster could have been averted, or at least mitigated. There is plenty of evidence that Sitting Bull wanted to negotiate and Custer, though there was nothing he loved so much as a battle, had shown a talent for Indian negotiation.

Misunderstanding, drunkenness, ambition, personal dislike, blunders and overconfidence all played their part at Little Bighorn and while Philbrick renders no judgments, he doesn't shrink from expressing opinions.

Of the overall commander, General Alfred Terry, Philbrick says: "As Terry would have wanted it given the ultimate outcome of the battle, Custer has become the focal point, the one we obsess about when it comes to both the Black Hills Expedition and the Little Bighorn. But, in many ways, it was Terry who was moving the chess pieces. Even though his legal opinion launched the Black Hills gold rush and his battle plan resulted in one of the most notorious military disasters in U.S. history, Terry has slunk back into the shadows of history, letting Custer take center stage in a cumulative tragedy for which Terry was, perhaps more than any other single person, responsible."

Outside of the battle itself, Philbrick gives us glimpses into Indian culture and the mood of westward yearning, land-hungry Americans. The Teton Sioux, the Lakota, had made enemies of most other Indian tribes in their own westward push to the Black Hills, a land Sitting Bull dubbed their "food pack" in his refusal to sell it the whites after Custer's discovery of gold there in 1875.

The U.S. army had no trouble enlisting Indian scouts from enemy tribes in its battles against the Sioux, and many of them held personal grudges against Sitting Bull and his warriors.

The Lakota revered war although glory did not always involve killing, but could be satisfied by "counting coup." Philbrick describes Sitting Bull's gruesome sun dance rituals - hanging suspended from two sticks thrust through his chest wall, having 50 pieces of flesh sliced from each arm - but does not delve into the meaning of these displays, other than to prove Sitting Bull's bravery and spiritual strength. These sun dance rituals usually led to visions. Which is not surprising after a couple days without food or water, bleeding in the blazing sun.

Philbrick does, however, provide copious notes (nearly 100 pages!), an extensive (27 pages) bibliography and a through index for those who want to pursue any further particulars.

There are also several glossy inserts of photographs and contemporary pictographs showing all the major principals, the land, and various battle depictions.

Masterfully organized and engagingly written, this is a history for anyone who enjoyed Philbrick's previous books, among them In the Heart of the Sea and Mayflower.

Let me start by saying I had low expectations of this book. Unlike Fox, Graham, and others there seemed to be no new material. I WAS WRONG. Dead wrong. What the author did was source other books, sure, but also letters, the Reno inquiry, first hand accounts from newspapers, Letters from Benteen, Army documents,ect. and puts them into a story that surpasses the other authors. It's a stunning, impossible to put down book. I used to think "son of the Morning star" was the best and could not be improved upon, well it has been. It does not ramble, or go off on other paths, this book takes all the well known, and also new information, and assembles it like only a first rate New York times bestselling author can do.

It's is not "light read", nor just a "primer" as some suggest. Everything that needs to be here, is here, including such details as wound analysis, Thompson's trips for water, to numerous first hand accounts of Reno's drinking,superb maps of the routes the boat the "far west" traveled in supplying the soldiers, all the way to the death of Sitting bull. It's all here and very, very detailed which I did not expect at all.

What it doesn't do is wildly speculate and it seems once most authors gets to Last stand hill, some go off on tangents and personal theories. Where there is some of that, there is no minute by minute replay like Gray attempts and fails at. Sorry, NOBODY can say minute by minute in a time motion study what happened. So Phibrick does not even try, what he does do is fill in with more first hand knowledge before LSH, and After, and delves into Benteen and Reno to a degree I have not read. He then supplments it with ton of first hand Indian accounts like in Lakota noon, making a seemless narrative, a story, that is thoughtful, shocking, scary at times, and gives insight into men in battle. It's is simply superb!!!

I would defy anyone reading this book to put it in a category of a rehash or introduction to the subject, that is ridiculous, it is loaded with every aspect of the event, and really gets deep into the mindset of all the participants on both sides. You can taste the dirt in their mouths, and smell the field of battle. it is simply the best book I have read on the subject out of my large bookshelf of Books including the custer myth, Fox, Killing custer,Son of morning star, the archaeology books, on and on.

Buy it, you will not be disappointed I assure you. It will be read and re-read because it is the best of the books in terms of story telling, and first class writing, backed by years of research as the voluminous notes in the back pages attest.
Outstanding work, and a must have for ANY reader, from the expert of the LBH to the novice.

The Last Stand, by Nathan Philbrick, is a splendid foray into the past, an examination of not only the Battle of the Little Bighorn but also of two of its more prominent participants, Sitting Bull and Custer. Though he relies on the testimony of those involved whenever possible, he is quick to point out that he "remains an outsider doing my best to make sense of it all."

It needs to be stated at the outset that Mr. Philbrick wastes no time in revealing his bias against George Armstrong Custer; it is to put things lightly to say that he takes a dismal view of Custer as a person, but it should be noted for those Custerphiles he might pick up the book that his judgments seem harshest at the outset than they do later on. He is somewhat more nuanced in his appraisal of Custer the soldier, citing his bravery and dash, but really, these compliments fall to the wayside in the face of such judgments as "His emotional effusions unhinged his judgment in way that went far beyond alcohol's ability to interfere with clear thinking." At his point, we are on page 17 out of a 448 page book. At this point I was left with the impression that I could not reasonably expect any sort of impartial study of one of the two central character's of this work.

I would have been mistaken, at least in part.

Even so, in these early pages there is little Custer is not accused of, including infidelity and dishonesty. He is rash, impetuous, and does not think before he leaps. This is an image completely at odds with the Custer of the Civil War (at this point I was left wondering if Philbrick bothered to study Custer's wartime career). Indeed, Philbrick seems to take every charge made against Custer at face value while assuming Custer's own words were invariably self-serving. One example of this process of vilification is that the author mentions the Cheyenne tradition that Custer fathered a child on Indian captive Monahsetah without revealing that the young woman gave birth less than two months after her capture, which makes Custer's fatherhood a thing of myth. He is more than happy to present Custer as a pimp who passed the hapless girl among his officers because "Indian women rape easy."

We see too the old charge renewed that Custer went into the 1876 campaign looking for a big victory to restore his reputation and once again put him before the public as America's hero. That Custer might have had as a goal his duty - to defeat the "hostiles" - seems inconceivable to the author.

Mr. Philbrick for some reason also feels the need to revive the mythical Custer-for-president tale invented by leftist activist Mari Sandoz out of whole cloth. Well before we come to the crucial events of June 25, 1876, Custer's character has been completely trashed.

I had expected better. And as I persevered, I was rewarded with a more thoughtful appraisal of Custer, as a soldier at least, if not as a man.

Custerphobes might be disappointed to learn, for example, that Mr. Philbrick's judgment is that the man most responsible for the "sad and terrible blunder" of the last stand was none other than General Alfred Terry, whose final instructions to Custer left the commander of the Seventh Cavalry "hesitant and depressed", doubting himself for the first time in his very successful career.

Mr. Philbrick makes a thoughtful examination of Terry's orders, pointing to his "lawyer's talent for crafting documents that appeared to say one thing but were couched in language that could allow for an entirely different interpretation should circumstances require it" - his orders to Custer being a case in point. "With these orders," the author tells us, "Terry had managed to protect his reputation no matter what the outcome. If Custer bolted for the village and claimed a great victory, it was because Terry had had the wisdom to give him an independent command. If Custer did so and failed, it was because he had disobeyed Terry's written orders." And of course, Custer did very nearly pull off a brilliant victory (as Mr. Philbrick admits) and Terry did use his cleverly written orders to put all the blame on Custer.

As the author points out, Custer was expected to attack. And as he also points out, even had Custer waited until the 26th (which he was not expected to do), Terry did not arrive until the 27th and his approach was so haphazard it is difficult to see how he could have been any use to Custer at all.

Benteen and Reno, reasonably enough, fail to come across in a sympathetic light, along with many of the officers of the Seventh. Reno was drunk, Benteen disobeyed orders and failed to march to the sound of the guns, as was expected of any commander of the period. Moylan and others broke down or like Reno and Weir, succumbed to the bottle. Mr. Philbrick rightly wonders what would have happened had Reno pressed his initial attack when the Indian participants themselves admit the village was in utter confusion and panic.

Much of the account of the battle itself not unreasonably focuses on that part we know best - Reno's charge, blundering retreat, and hilltop siege. Here we have survivors and abundant if sometimes conflicting testimony. Mr. Philbrick does the best he can with this. If Benteen disobeyed orders, and barely participated in the initial stages of the battle, he more than made up for it once he decided to fight. There is little anyone can do to restore Reno's reputation, though in the author's view he was "not the sniveling coward some later made him out to be."

There is a speculative account of the actions of Custer and his battalion after trumpeter Martini's departure. Here the author follows the outline provided by archaeologist Richard A. Fox's Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle. In a sense, it is disappointed that the account is as brief as it is, as the book's title is, after, the Last Stand. Much more thorough accounts are to be had and I recommend Gregory Michno's Lakota Noon and his The Mystery of E Troop: Custer's Gay Horse Company at the Little Bighorn, which boasts its own speculative account of the movements of this well known company. In brief, Mr. Philbrick argues that Custer's battalion battled for a couple of hours (not mere minutes as detractors claim) and that Custer remained on the offensive almost until the very end.

The author rounds out his study with a brief examination of the aftermath of the Last Stand, including Sitting Bull's efforts to retain leadership of his people once on the reservation and his murder at the hands of the tribal police, and Libbie Custer's efforts to restore and maintain the reputation of her husband as a courageous and upright soldier and loving husband. In this regard, James Donovan in his A Terrible Glory, does a superior job, but this can be put down to the differing agendas of the two authors.

The reader will find rewarding Mr. Philbrick's ample notes, written in narrative style, which are a very useful and informative accompaniment to the text but also an excellent read on their own.

The bibliography is exhaustive, and the book contains numerous maps and illustrations, both in black and white and in color. There are also two appendices, one on the Seventh Cavalry on the afternoon of June 25, 1876, which lists all the officers, men and civilians mentioned in the text by battalion and company, and another which does the same for Sitting Bull's village on that day, listed by tribe.

The Last Stand may not be the best account of the Little Bighorn but it is a worthy read and I highly recommend it to students of the battle.

This is the third book I've read by Nathaniel Philbrick. All have been great interpretations of actual events. He really dug into available information and put together a very accurate depiction of actual events. He did an excellent job of describing the feelings and tensions between the main cast of characters. I felt like I got a very good picture of the men, the landscape, and the battle(s) at the Little Bighorn. It was well worth the read.

I must admit that I was not optomistic about this one, having read a great deal of Custeriana and being at least moderately knowledgeable about the subject. But I was really pleasantly blown away by this book. Most significant in this regard was the author's inclusion of great background (to some, but not to me, "trivia") information on most of the relevant characters from big to small players. This includes, of course, Benteen and Reno, but also the likes of Fred Girard, Bloody Knife, Grant Marsh, Terry, Crook, Gibbon, Sitting Bull, et al. It goes a bit deeper than Utley's rightful classic (Cavalier in Buckskin) as it should, considering the 100 or so extra pages. The writing is very sound and, as I said, although a Custeriana fanatic, I really couldn't and didn't want to put it down because it was surprisingly fresh. Great notes, too. Well done Mr. Philbrick!!!

This is an excellent addition to the Battle of the Little Bighorn and a compelling read. I highly recommend a 39 part video exposition of the battlefield as seen today, to further help you appreciate what happened on that terrible day to the 7th Cavalry. You can see that at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7950A1D9CA754945 The same amateur historian also did a map study at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdXpYp0_pI Both of these will add to your enjoyment of this compelling history.

I thoroughly enjoyed Nathaniel Philbrick's history of the Pilgrims, Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War and was more than willing to learn again from him about an historical subject I know nothing about, The Last Stand. This book was available for a Kindle loan through my local library and is a great read on the Kindle, but I have the same complaint with all the Kindle books that include maps; the maps are very hard to read.

The short summary is: this book is excellent. Philbrick credits Sitting Bull's success to prophecy and Custer's defeat to his own hubris, his fellow officer Reno's cowardice and drunkenness, and his fellow officer Benteen's passive aggressive attitude. This way he can appease all the hard-core amateurs who like to single out a single reason for the loss of over 200 US soldiers at the Little Bighorn River. This book was an excellent introduction to this historical event.

More in-depth analysis with too many quotes is at my blog.

150 years after George Armstrong Custer's first appearance in the American Civil War, he still fascinates us. We might feel it is a horrific accident or a great work of art but we always look at him. He is a larger than life presence in our history, both loved and hated. There are a goodly number of books and movies on Custer, his record in the Civil War and the Battle of Little Big Horn. The range is from him being "the deranged maniac of Little Big Man" to "the noble hero ... in They died with Their Boots On". A good Custer book is always a treat, always worth reading and this is a very good Custer book!
Nathaniel Philbrick gives the reader a very human Custer. Older but not wiser, he is as flamboyant as ever chafing under the restrictions of military life. The author is careful to be fair to all sides, presenting a balanced portrait. My only reservation is his reliance of Benteen for so much personal information. While most of it is carefully collaborated, the glass is often half full.
The Seventh Cavalry is a character in this story. The author takes a long hard look at the army during the Indian Wars, providing some surprising information. Top heavy with senior offices reduced in rank after the Civil War, Custer is a Lieutenant Colonel reduced from Brigadier General, complicated by the brevet system of rank and under staffed they soldier on. Careful preparation pays big dividends giving the reader an excellent understanding of the complex relationships within the regiment. Understanding this adds an extra dimension to Reno and Benteen's actions on the battlefield.
The author fully develops Sitting Bull and his village, providing a full background of tribal politics within their warrior society. This is an extra dimension to the story and an important one. While cautioned that Native American participants guarded what they said, their statements flesh out the account of the battle. The book covers relations between "hostile" and "friendly" Indians and how this plays out during the campaign.
The centerpiece of the book is the Battle of Little Big Horn. Seven maps and over 130 pages cover this in detail. The author fully captures the chaos, fear and uncertainty of battle. Weaving accounts of saviors with historical evidence produces a well-documented very readable account. The author refuses to speculate on Custer's battle. This is not a HEROIC LAST STAND account of glorious battle. This is a nasty dirty fight where one side is overrun and slaughtered. While avoiding speculation the author captures the fear and collapse of Custer's command.
Footnotes have a unique presentation. They are endnotes referenced to pages. However, there are no footnote numbers. The endnotes represent a walk through the documents available to historians. I read them as a stand-alone book, finding them very informative.
This is an excellent book. Interesting, well researched, well documented and a pleasure to read.

Knowing very little about George Custer and the massacre at Little Big Horn, I decided to read Nathaniel Philbrick's The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of Little Bighorn. "For legions of self-described Custer buffs, the Battle of Little Bighorn is much like an unsolvable crossword puzzle: a conundrum that can sustain a lifetime of scrutiny and debate." Although it's almost impossible to determine what actually happened, Philbrick does a commendable job of trying to piece together the tragic events.

The Battle of Little Bighorn ended up being like The Perfect Storm. There were so many factors that resulted in the convergence of Custer's Troops and over 8,000 Indians, led by Sitting Bull. On the eve of America's Centennial, miners had moved into the sacred Native American lands, the Black Hills. American Troops were sent in to protect the miners. American Troops were also trying to get the Native Americans to move onto reservations. The reservations were so poorly stocked that Native chiefs had to move their tribes out of the reservations in order to hunt for food for their survival. And this allowed Sitting Bull's tribe (one of the last hold-outs) to swell to over 8,000. One of most tragic parts of this entire situation is that when Sitting Bull saw the American Troops, he did not wish to fight. But when the soldiers attacked his nephew, Sitting Bull refused to back down. There is a lot of blame to go around on this one, and Philbrick reserves some for all the parties involved (Custer, Reno and Benteen).

Philbrick gives a short background on Custer and Sitting Bull. George Armstrong Custer graduated last in his class at West Point, yet was one of the best cavalry officers of the Civil War. His "four-year flirtation with academic disaster seems to have served him well. By graduation he'd developed a talent for maintaining a rigorous, if unconventional, discipline amid the chaos." This flamboyant, self-serving, conceited officer often acted against orders given him by his superiors. Sitting Bull, leader of the Sioux, was a famed warrior who ended up becoming more of a compromiser. The irony in this story is that while The Last Stand was a major victory for Sitting Bull and his tribe, it was to be the beginning of the end for their way of life. In fact, the Battle of Little Bighorn set off a chain of events that didn't end until the Massacre at Wounded Knee.

The Last Stand can be confusing in spots--especially when trying to figure out positions, troop movements, etc. But Philbrick provides plenty of maps and charts (along with lots of photographs and drawings) to help the reader understand what was happening. He tries to sort through historical documents, interviews, letters, etc. and to see through the "spin" that the original authors put on them (mostly to make themselves look good). He also uses some archaeological evidence that was gathered in the 1980s after a fire at Little Bighorn. This shed some new light on forensics, weapons, positions, etc.

I originally came to enjoy Nathaniel Philbrick for his books that deal with the sea. The Last Stand shows that he is just as comfortable on land.

History is a funny thing. Just when you think that the facts lean one direction, the winds change and send the story spinning the opposite way. And no story in annals of western history typifies this more than the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

I've read with interest the reviews here concerning THE LAST STAND: CUSTER, SITTING BULL, AND THE BATTLE OF THE LITTLE BIGHORN (hereafter LAST STAND) by Nathan Philbrick and conclude one very important fact: this is a tangle destined never to be successfully unraveled.

So why read it? First, it attempts, yet again, to analyze the history of the event and to approach it from varying perspectives. I have read practically everything ever written about the Battle of the Little Bighorn or, if you will, the Greasy Grass Fight and have carefully digested the views of intelligent authors--none of which completely agree about the history. Philbrick's view is his and it is new and it is--at least from my point of view--refreshing. So read it, not to finally find out whether Custer shot himself or whether a comrade at arms--possibly his brother, Tom--helped him in his need. Take my word for it, such answers--regardless of how many "new" journals are forthcoming or how many moldy old letters are found or how many great-great grandchildren of combatants on either side of the conflict claim to have some hidden fragment of the truth--regardless, such answers will never, ever be found. It's just been too long ago and there were too few credible witnesses. Period!

Second, read it in order to enjoy Nathan Philbrick's consummate expertise as a wordsmith and storyteller. Of all of the histories of the pivotal western event that I have read, none comes close to the reading enjoyment that I found with Philbrick's account. None.

Third, read it and be a part of the ongoing debate! One of the marvelous things about Custer and Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and their nineteenth century conflict on an obscure Montana hillside is the inevitable wrangling that arises every time two or more people are presented with the account. Was Custer a pathetic, self-promoting blowhard that needlessly killed himself and his men? Was Crazy Horse the mythic Spirit Warrior, impervious by destiny to the bullets of his white adversaries? Were Reno and Benteen the clowns that some historians have painted them to be? Was Libbie Custer a potentially impoverished widow who--using tactics similar to those of Buffalo Bill Cody--decided that, regardless of the means employed, her husband's reputation needed saving, as much out love for him as out of the necessity to personally survive financially?

See, I've got you riled up already!

THE LAST STAND is an admirable addition to the history in question. Does it provide new and groundbreaking information as to what exactly happened so long ago at the Little Bighorn? Absolutely not. But as already noted, what "new" volume ever will?

THE HORSEMAN

I loved this book. I have read a ton about Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. I have read about Custer's youth, his time in the Civil War, and his time in the West.
This book revealed facts I had never seen before (Like how involved Grant Marsh's riverboat "The Far West" was in the campaign) and the story unfolds in such a wonderfully dramatic way.
Philbrick does a good job of presenting Custer in both positive and negative lights. In this way, he shows us Custer as a real person. Not as a 2-dimensional egomaniacal villain or as a 2-dimensional hero of the old west. He is a real guy with some really great traits and some tragically fatal flaws.
So, this was a great book, a great read and it left me pensive for a few days after reading it. I had grown so fond of the characters (who happened to be real people) that I was (and still am) sad about their fates. Some met them at The Little Bighorn and some (like Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse) met theirs a few years later.
Highly recommended book even if you have read every thing about Custer or if you have never read one word about him.

Nathaniel Philbrick's "The Last Stand" was doubly appealing to me by virtue of my longtime interest in George A. Custer's catastrophic blundering and Nathaniel Philbrick's body of work. The Last Stand does not disappoint, in any way shape or form.

After Evan Connell's "Son of the Morning Star", I might have thought it too daunting for another historian to take on the challenge of finding new ground or a fresh perspective on the demise of Custer's Seventh Cavalry, however what makes Philbrick's telling of the tale worthwhile is his combination of scholarship and superior story telling. At times his portrayal of Custer and his officers can be maddeningly evenhanded (especially if you dislike Custer as I do). But Philbrick paints a vivid portrait of an officer that played a key role in the North's victory in the Civil War, along with his subordinates, including some who might well bear equal responsibility for the disaster. Through an exhaustive search of eyewitness accounts (on both sides of the battle line), Philbrick sorts out much of the legend and hearsay; resulting in a story that perhaps recognizes the heroes and goats better than any I've read to date.

Philbrick's prose would be reason enough, however his writing and research is augmented by numerous maps and archived photos and pictographs. In addition to Custer, the primary player in this historical morality tale, the reader comes away with an enhanced understanding of Sitting Bull and his lieutenants (especially Crazy Horse and Gall), along with Major Marcus Reno and Captain Frederick Benteen, whose troops could have either rescued Custer's company or died with them on Last Stand Hill.

For anyone interested in this part of American history, or any reader looking for an accurate portrayal of the past, I can't recommend this book highly enough!

Interesting character development of the key players especially of Custer, Reno, and Sitting Bull. NOTE: The maps were important to me to get a better visual understanding of troop and indian locatons; however on a Kindle Paperwhite ,I couln't enlarge the maps. I needed a magnifying glass! Disappointing. No reflection on the author or the book itself, however.

Nathaniel Phibrick once again brings us down the dusty trail to the Little Bighorn and the death of General Custer.

Philbrick does an excellent job of chronicling the campaign. He tells a good story utilizing first hand accounts from both sides of a story that has been told over and over again.

The best point of the book was the incorporation of maps within the text so that you did not have to keep flipping to the back to view the maps.

The distracting point for me was the number of times jumping back and forth to previous events to illustrate a point.

All in all a good book on the Little Bighorn but I enjoyed The Terrible Glory by James Donovan little bit more.

The Last Stand will help any person understand the Battle of the Little Bighorn and the events leading up to it.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn occupies an interesting and somewhat awkward place in American history. It was a resounding defeat for the US troops, but it only delayed the inevitable suppression for the victorious Native Americans. It's often referred to as "Custer's Last Stand," where General George Armstrong Custer, a flamboyant and iconic "Indian fighter" and soldier, met his death when his severely outnumbered troops attacked an immense gathering of Lakota (Sioux) and Cheyenne led by the warrior-chief Sitting Bull.

Nathaniel Philbrick has written an excellent history that details many of the personalities involved on both sides of Little Bighorn, starting with Custer and Sitting Bull. But I disagree with those reviews saying he does this without taking sides - it's perfectly clear by his tone and language in the beginning who the good guys and bad guys are in this story. By the end, however, it mellows and seems almost impartial and, for me, this is when the book became much more interesting and human. Since the precise details of Custer's demise are unknown, Philbrick offers his own speculation based upon the various accounts and evidence available. And interestingly, throughout he presents the different accounts and how they measure up against what was perhaps the most important factor in the battle: the physical terrain. Numerous maps and photos (b&w and color) help put places and faces to the names.

Having grown up in the mountain west and spent summer vacations fishing with my grandpa on Indian reservations (we'd show up with state-issued fishing licenses but he'd always insist we get reservation permits because - I assumed - the trout fishing was better there), I always had a hard time reconciling the idea that "Indians" had been considered enemies. Yes, I'd seen cowboy and Indian movies but I didn't understand why there was a need for "Indian fighters" or why they would be idolized in popular culture. Couldn't they all just get along? Philbrick offers a brief and simple explanation (settlers and gold) but I wished for something more complete, more satisfying. Nonetheless, a very good introduction to the subject of Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Last Stand.

A very readable book on LBH, crisp and clear and interesting with some new facts for me but of course Philbrick ploughs his own agenda, so l would like to comment re Captain Benteen.

Philbrick is too hard on Captain Benteen, after all he was awarded a brevet as Brigadier General for his brave conduct at LBH. Too much is made of Benteens so called vendetta against Custer. In the 1870s he was at the top of his game and well he had enough on his plate and in his own life without thinking about Custer all the time. Late in life he became very caustic, and l believe he suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome much like the General Ranald Mackenzie who broke down completely after much service in the Civil War and on the western frontier. As for Captains Bells comments re the slackness in appearance of Benteens troop, he was just sour as he and Benteen never got on.

At LBH the Indians won it was simple as that and Captain Benteens earler comments about the 7th one day being scooped came true. The 7th was suffering from lack of sleep and were being pushed beyond their endurance, maybe they were dehydrated as well and did not eat much more than meals of hardtack and bacon before the battle. As for the Indians fresh and relaxed after a good nights sleep and a belly of fresh meat and herbs and fresh water, they were rarin to go and had far superior numbers and they were fighting for their families and homeland.

I await French Maclean Maclean's new book Custer's Best: The Story of Company M, 7th Cavalry at the Little Bighorn due out later in the month to cast a lot more light on Benteen's actions at LBH. Another book due out in October is "Harvest of Barren Regrets: The Army Career of Frederick William Benteen, 1834-1898" by Charles K Mills, l can heardly wait to read them!

Beyond that Philbriks's scenario of what actually happened to Custer's command after it split up is interesting and thought provoking.

Nathaniel Philbrick has taken on the task of separating popular fiction from what facts he could find. I was as impressed with the bibliography, index, and footnotes in the appendix of this prodigious book as with the way he chose to tell this well-known tale.

He attempts to equalize the telling of Custer's Last Stand with the situation in the Native American world and thus, Sitting Bull's Last Stand. He provides copious evidence of the impoverishment of the Native American tribes and the full-scaled massacre of the people, women, children, the old and the wounded as well as the warriors. At the same time, he looks at the pressure of the government from the American people, needing and demanding expansion.

Philbrick brings in the impact of technology (such as the use of telescopes and their variant power at the time of the battle) as well as the elements of luck, timing, and ego.

As with many another historian, Philbrick assesses the role of Custer's ego, but in this book we also see into the seething fury of Benteen and the rather benighted Major Reno. Philbrick offers a full cast of "characters" (real men) and sorts them into their divisions as well as their loyalties. He offers new information such as the changing of divisions by horse color to let the reader assess for himself/herself what Custer's motivations were.

While I prefer historical fiction to non-fiction, this book engaged me in coming to terms with one of the most infamous battles in history. In all ways, the battle marks a tragedy for the brigade Custer led, the wives and families involved on both sides, and the beginning of the end for the Native Americans of the Plains.

Another book about Custer that I liked better though I know it may not be as fully factually accurate is
"A Road We Do Not Know" and "Moon of Bitter Cold" by Chiaventone.

You need a roadmap to be able to follow all the "players"..makes it extremely difficult to follow , you get to a character and then try to remember what the person's standing was in Custers troop, probably taking notes of names would help as you move thru book...that aside, very informative

The thing about history is that we know what happend in the end...who won, who lost. Hey, I knew Custer was clobbered -probably since the 4th grade. And yet, as I listened to George Guidall narrate this excitingly written piece of history, the tension Nathaniel Philbrick creates - the pieces of swirling small incidents surrounding the huge moments, decisions, encounters and clashes [both in battle and in egos] - created an atmosphere akin to whodunits: What Was Going To Happen Next? And, much like watching a movie and wanting to yell at the hero/heroine, "Don't go there...don't open that door...don't trust him, he's not really a cop!", I found myself wanting to yell warnings to all of them. That's how good this is. The book embodies how we need to teach history to our kids, to ourselves in order to understand and not to repeat it.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn, just like the Battle of the Alamo, will be analyzed and written about for generations to come. There appears to be no end to the fascination that people have to write and read about these historically catastrophic events. They are seared into the minds of old and young alike since grade school. One would think that there would be nothing more to add to what has already been said; however, Philbrick has attempted and,in large measure,achieved what he apparently set out to do.

While spending a majority of the time delving into the lives of those associated with the 7th Cavalry, Philbrick gives due diligence to the leaders of the western tribes, mainly Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. Although being difficult to truly understand the thoughts and motivation of the American Indians, aside from their natural instinct for survival in the face of the white man's encroachment on their living space, Philbrick makes no moral judgment for their actions; he avoids the typical sterotyping that are attributed to the Plain's Indians. It becomes clear to the reader that cultural dissimilarities made it impossible for any kind of reconciliation between people from the East, that put a high premium on personal property, and those from the West who viewed land only as open hunting ground. Also, those in authority considered native Americans as sub-humans that had to be eradicated just as much as the native bison.

Philbrick, as many before, examines the complex relationships that existed among those of the 7th Cavalry. Each had their own demons with which to contend and their underlying animosities, paricularly with regards to Custer and his command. Bravado, recklessness, geograghic ignorance, and poor communications all had a decisive part in the blunder of all blunders. Philbrick carefully pinpoints the deficiencies of leadership up to and including the last encounter.

It was exciting to revisit and recount the characters and events that makes this episode such an interesting and controversial part of the westward expansion. If you are a student of American history, I feel that you will thoroughly enjoy and find informative the engrossing addition to the saga of "The Last Stand".

Like the cheese, the story of Custer's last battle stands alone. One thinks only of its final denouement, with Custer standing amid his doughty yet dwindling band, circled by howling Indians. But few works tell us what brought Custer to that dry, lonely hilltop in Montana in July 1876, ironically, the centenary of the nation's founding. Fewer still tell of us of the varied personalities that made up the drama.

In a master work of historical reconstruction, Nathanial Philbrick brings life to the bravery, foolishness, brutality, jealousy and deprivation that made up the life of the Seventh Cavalry in the years and months preceding their rendezvous with destiny. He parallels this with the tale of the 7th's prey - the Sioux bands of "hostiles" trying to maintain their old, nomadic way of life, hunting the buffalo. Using contemporary diaries and the transcripts of courts martial, Philbrick describes the life of a soldier on the prairie and of the fractious officers who led them. Custer, in this accounting, comes across as alternately, courageous, able, adolescent, intemperate and vain. His fellow offices, Marcus Reno and Frederick Benteen, and his commander, General Terry, are all too human. They play politics with their commands, among other things using the press to settle personal score. Like peevish teenagers, they use obedience, disobedience and half-obedience in self-serving ways. Philbrick's reconstruction of the battle of the Little Bighorn is told in stunning and convincing detail, in spite of the lack of perspective from Custer himself. His narrative of the chaos of battle makes the danger to the troopers palpable, and the betrayal of their peevish commanders vexing. The image of Benteen and Reno, hearing the volleys of battle from Custer's direction, and then delaying their support, was haunting.

Due to a lesser amount of historical information, the Indian side of the story is less-well told. The story focuses on Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, but includes many other Indian warriors, and even a female fighter or two. But still, there is enough information to validate some US army accounts, to challenge others, and to fill in missing pieces. The precarious position of the Sioux, Cheyennes and other tribes who camped on the Little Bighorn that fateful July in 1876, is apparent. Their victory over the US was real, but was still a near thing. And that victory ensured an aftermath that was a literal march to virtual extinction.

Philbrick spent relatively little space discussing the fallout of the battle. This was a disappointment, because so much of Custer's legend is of posthumous invention. Why did later generations need to set up Custer as a touchstone of bravery in the face of daunting odds? What is it about him that many have identified with? Philbrick says little about this. His wrap up of the story of the Indians, concluding with Sitting Bull's murder in 1890, is too quickly told.

Like Philbrick's other great book, "Mayflower", "The Last Stand" sheds light on an overly mythologized chapter of American history. His characters, while more complex than their storybook counterparts, still retain aspects of nobility and courage, even with their faults and weaknesses exposed. The details he provides tell so much about the human beings in the drama. Custer, besotted with wife Libbie, had a fondness for extramarital dalliances, including with Indian captives. His hairline receding in middle-age, Custer had recently shorn his long locks before his last mission. And Sitting Bull, tossing and turning as he tries to sleep between his two quarrelsome wives, was precious. A great piece of history and a great read.

I didn't know all the details of the battle and I thought that this new book would be the last word on the last stand. Lots of time spent on the troop movement towards Bighorn, a great deal of words spent on Reno's attack/retreat/defense and Benteen's actions, but just one chapter on Custer's last stand movements. I was expecting there to be more chapters about Custer's stand, but then it moved onto mop-up operations. A couple of really good maps of where the troopers fell so I could get an idea on how things played out would have been a big plus also. The book is called the "The Last Stand", but I'm beginning to think that it should be called "Benteen & Reno, Battle at Bighorn". Now, I'll have to do some digging around and find a book that delves more into Custer's last hours. A nice book, but I'm still hungry.

Another good book on Custer's "Last Stand" for any Custer or Sitting Bull buff. This work is unique with the narrative comparing the lives, leadership, and fates of George A. Custer and Chief Sitting Bull; with the author attempting to show in their differences, how similar the two were. Having just read 2008's "A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn", I was interested to see if I was wasting my time with another work on the same subject. I was pleasantly surprised to find that this work adds to the the other book, and the Indian personal accounts help to balance the other work which is more centered on Custer and was a more chronological account of the battle. This book reads more at times like a novel, and the chapters jump back and forth from the perspective of the soldiers, to the perpective of the Indians. Like another reviewer, I did have problems with the author sudedenly alluding back to the earlier Battle of Wishita in the mist of his story at times and having to figure out which battle he was talking about at the time. Sometimes there wasn't a clear indication that he was referring to the previous battle and then he would suddenly come back where he had left off before he broke off and you thought he was still continuing with the earlier battle.
Reno comes off again as a drunken coward, and in the heat of battle, leaves the command of the battle to Benteen. The politics of the jealous natures of both Reno and Benteen (their hatred for him and his popularity) in regard to Custer are brought out, along with the inference that this jealousy may have caused Reno and Benteen to have delayed coming to Custer's aide, but which the author says could also have possibly added to their annihilation as well, and may have been the only reason there were survivors. Custer does not come off as the bumbling fool, although his weaknesses for being headstrong and being impulsive are broght out. His other flaws such as his possible affairs with Indian women are included. I thought the personal accounts of the Indians who were present on the battlefield adds very much to the story. It is good to get the Indian's perpective of the events, and better still, to learn that there were a few women Indians in the battle and to get their accounts.
The book leads up to the battle of the Little Bighorn, and takes half the book getting to the point, and then goes into great detail the engagement of Reno and their fight and subsequent retreat and loss of life. The account of Custer is not given until the very last of the book and is sort of a let down because the whole book leads the reader to anticipate the account of Custer's last battle. While there were witnesses and court testimony of the Reno events, there were no survivors of the Custer incounter, with the exception of the Indians. Which I suppose is why less detail is given here. However, I felt that the 2008's "A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn", did a better job of trying to address the movement of Custer and recent archeological finds of the account. I felt after going this far in the book, Custer's last stand should have been given more pages...after all the book is "The Last Stand:Custer, Siting Bull and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. After reading it, the title could just have easily and maybe more aptly named: "The Last Stand: Reno, Benteen, Sitting Bull, andt he Battle of the Little Bighorn". This is why I give the book 4 stars instead of 5. All in all the book is a good read and the details that he includes about Libbie, and their love for each other is a bonus.
Since I live only 45 miles away from Elizabehtown, KY, it was interesting to see the author include Custer's stay for several years while stationed in Elizabethtown, and include details of his accumulation of dogs he kept, which were as many as 80 dogs while there. The Brown-Pussy house is still there, where he headquartered on their lot which had cabins in the back where he stayed, and is open to the public today. I would highly reccommend this book to any serious student of Custer and/or Sitting Bull.

What I loved about this book was the readability of the prose. Structurally, the presentation is not completely chronological, which interested me very much. This history book, then, is presented with a contemporary literary structure and Philbrick's narrative voice is compelling and dynamic. I appreciated very much his ambiguity of the historical events as, like a good historian must do, he carefully weighs the different accounts of the battle and considers the likelihood of each version. While I enjoyed the author's "Mayflower" very much, I connected more with this book and I consider it to be one of the best history books I've ever read. I must read other books by this author/scholar. Highly recommended!

The Last Stand is a nice mix of overview of Western history and detailed account of Custer's Last Stand which should satisfy both general history buffs and Last Stand geeks. Was there ever a more eccentric group of officers in one unit of the U.S. Army ? This book should be required reading at West Point, as it is replete with examples of how NOT to command. I found the author's in-depth look at the Plains Indians culture, with its emphasis on dreams, visions, and omens to be fascinating. It's hard to imagine two cultures more alien than the Indians and the predominantly European whites. There's also a wealth of personal detail about George Custer- what a strange man he was- alternately wildly impulsive and moodily silent.

Every child growing up - at least those in my era - grew up learning about Custer' s last stand at Little Big Horn. Nathaniel Philbrick has written a thought-provoking account of the events leading to that iconic event in American history. A very well written story that has earned a permanent place in my library.

As one who was completely unaware of the full details surrounding the final campaign of General Custer leading up to the Battle of the Little Bighorn, I truly appreciated "The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn" by Nathaniel Philbrick. In this book, Philbrick does a masterful job of setting up and describing the battle in full detail. While highlighting Custer's role in the Civil War, he doesn't linger there. Most of the details regarding Custer's past revolve around his relationship with his wife. Philbrick also doesn't dwell on Custer. Half the book discusses Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, the myriad other native warriors and officers in the United States cavalry command. It is brilliantly detailed and highly readable. I knew there had to be significant errors which led to the fateful day on Last Stand Hill, but until reading this book I had no idea what they were. Alcohol, mistrust of fellow officers, misuse of equipment all played a critical role. I am sure there are plenty of good works written on this story, but I am glad I chose to read Philbrick's work dedicated to the topic. I have read his book, "Mayflower", which was also excellent, so I knew I was going to at least get a good, accurate, and fun read out of it. It did not disappoint on those counts.

"There's no fool like an old fool." - Cliché

"He is only one man, but by God he is an Englishman." - From MAJOR PETTIGREW'S LAST STAND

"I'm not the general public ... I'm British army, rank of major. Retired, of course ..." - Major Ernest Pettigrew

Major Ernest Pettigrew (retired) of Edgecombe St. Mary, lately of the Royal Sussex, is fighting a rear guard action while retreating down the back slope of his life. His beloved wife is dead and, recently, his brother. His only child, a son, is off in the City being insufferable as the VP of some poncy equity firm. At sixty-eight years, the Major is faced with the loneliness and anonymity of old age.

The England that the Major served as a young army officer is undergoing change. The new generation is less willing to serve Queen and country. The influx of foreign immigrants is altering the demographic landscape. The landed nobility is succumbing to a ferocious Inland Revenue. The green and gentle countryside is being transformed into housing estates, especially south of London. Tradition has become passé.

In the twilight of his life, the Major finds himself attracted to a local shop owner some thirteen years his junior - an unremarkable last enlivening spark except that she's Pakistani. While Mrs. Ali may be a legal resident, she isn't, in the eyes of the Major's disapproving neighbors, English. Quite so.

MAJOR PETTIGREW'S LAST STAND by Helen Simonson is the compassionate, amusing story of an old-school gentleman and officer seeking a rallying point in the company of someone who makes him feel a little less anonymous. It's too long by about fifty pages, and the ending perhaps too dramatic. But, while I'm certainly no expert on the contemporary changes in English society, I've loved the country inordinately since my first visit thirty-six years ago, and I was engaged by the time and place of the tale and the Major's values.

For the reader who is both entertained and satisfied by this novel, I can heartily recommend The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, which is, in my opinion, an even better read. Brilliant, actually.

He was a military man, first and foremost, who followed the orders of his superior officers. Most of the time. Yet sometimes, George Armstrong Custer was a risk-taker. And. most of the time it worked except when it didn't at the last stand. Yes, when it felt right, he would choose his own way to promote his career. So did his wife, Libbie, in a most shameless way.

This telling of the story we have heard so many times flows wonderfully well with many narratives and comments from those who were there that day. The numerous maps help us follow the troops movements. The author's research is outstanding and the story telling intriguing. Highly recommended to those who are interested in a clear, concise telling of the battle at the Little Big Horn.

All I knew about Custer's Last Stand I learned from the movies. This book is a real eye opener about this legendary event. Having read the author's last two books I knew I was in for a great read and I wasn't disappointed, although knowing how it ends does spoil some of the suspense. Philbrick's detailed descriptions of the campaign's preparations and the lead up to Custer's confrontation with most of the Lakota Nation make for fascinating reading. His research pulls together all the disparate accounts into a cohesive and highly readable whole. The descriptions of the battle's aftermath were especially interesting though /gruesome. I would highly recommend this book to all readers interested in the history of the American West.

A summary of a thorough literature review, but falls short on a factual description. The many adjectives just don't seem to track conditions at the time. an example is the description of weather conditions during the 3 day battles being boiling hot and super cold. In August?

This book makes the strongest case ever for Custer's judgment against history's judgement that he `rashly disobeyed orders in the search for glory'.

It is unquestionably the case that Custer was supremely self confident (believing in his `custer luck') to the point of arrogance. Nor can it be disputed that he, as did many soldiers of his time, hungered for a glorious victory. However it is no longer generally well known (outside of Custer buffs) that he was a hero of the Civil War who by his own account always had a great deal of analysis of the strategic and tactical situation baked in to the spur of the moment decisions he made.

What follows is a summary of the case for Custer that can be gleaned from Philbrick's book. It's a bit onesided, and I'd appreciate corrections of the details!

1. The original decision made by General Terry to divide his thousands of troops into 3 units (led by Terry, Gibbon and Custer) in order to spread a wider net to find the Indians. Terry, perhaps because he lacked Custer's experience in Indian fighting, was also responsible for the decision to give Custer the command of the regiments that would most likely reach the Indians first. Terry then boxed in Custer by putting in Custer's written orders that he must stay on a predetermined trail unless he came into contact with the enemy, in which case the written orders said something to the effect of `I would not wish to restrain your zeal'.
2. Related to point 1, Philbrick writes of Terry that he had a preternatural ability to project his subconscious fears into his subordinates. After his meeting with Terry on the Far West a few days before the battle, Custer was visibly upset, and in the days leading up to the battle, lost his temper more often and wasn't his usual rowdy and joking self.
3. Custer was served by poor intelligence which suggested that the Indian village was a lot smaller than it was. Poor maps made it impossible to correct this information. In some cases, it seems that the translator Gerard did not properly convey Arikara scouts' warnings of a large village, although some of the scouts did try to talk to Custer directly and were rebuffed. I believe (but want to recheck) that Philbrick even contends that Custer was unaware of the battle of the powder River, in which a village of hundreds of Indians repulsed an attack of 2000 soldiers, which might have led to a higher estime of village sizes.
4. Military conventional wisdom of the time (backed by experience of virtually every previous engagement) was that Indians will scatter when attacked.
5. All of the above led Custer to divide his forces into 3 units (Benteen's, Reno's, and his) because he was concerned about Indians escaping, which was a grave tactical miscalculation. Custer again sub-divided his forces at the battle itself, in part to prevent hostages, but also in part to have one force to attack and another to defend
6. Reno's failure to attack when the village was in a panic, but rather to form a skirmish line. In the first half hour of the battle, Indian women reported that the village was in panic. Certainly at least some of the warriors would have returned to protect the women and children and in that case would have been preoccupied with protection and less likely to attack. Within an hour the tide had turned and Reno was on the defensive.
7. Benteen's hatred of Custer led to his preconception that Custer had abandoned his troops, which fed into his decision not to try to join Custer. Since Benteen fought with great heroism that day, this decision can't be attributed to solely to cowardice the way Reno's fleeing could.
8. Feeding this preconception of Benteen's was the Italian born messenger John Martin's babbling about Custer's great success (after he had come the area where Benteen's troops were besieged with the famous message: Big village get here quick bring packs).
9. The Indians had about 300 repeating rifles while the 7th had carbines which had to be reloaded after every shot and jammed often.

Philbrick's otherwise clearly written, dramatic narrative of the Battle of the Little Bighorn is flawed by the pages devoted to an episode which Philbrick agrees may or may not be true - and most likely is not true - an episode ignored by all other recent accounts of the battle: the very dubious narrative of Private Thompson, who says he saw Custer riding up and down the "empty" village during Reno's assault on the southern end. This, I believe, is not good journalism.

This was not only a story about Custer but about the officers surrounding him and his relationship with them which had much to do with the tragedy. Philbrick did an excellent job of portraying and analyzing the motivations and personalities of the officers of the 7th cavalry.

I'm beginning to think this man can do no wrong. I love a good, page-turning history that keeps me on the edge of my seat when I already know the historical outcome. Philbrick has already shown me he can produce twice (with In the Heart of the Sea and Mayflower), and he's done it again with this fascinating re-telling of the tragedy of the Little Bighorn. Philbrick presents interesting details about the battle itself and all its incredible personalities. The only problem I had with this book was that when I finished, I wanted to go out and find the best biographies of Sitting Bull and Custer that I could since Philbrick had managed to depict both men as amazingly interesting yet also incredibly human. To me, the sign of a good non-fiction book about a historical event or period is when I find my appetite whetted to learn even more on the subject. Philbrick has done so three times now, and his detailed research and flair for telling a story has made me a big fan. If you like American history or non-fiction at all, you owe it to yourself to read Philbrick, and this book is a great place to start.

If you have not read the books in Philbrick's bibliography, this is a very good book for you to read. It covers the important things in Custer's life as well as the events in the life of Sitting Bull. Philbrick has done his research and writes with a professionalism that has many benefits. A great deal of research has been done on this topic, so anyone deciding to write yet another book must get his stuff together. Philbrick writes about Custer and Sitting Bull from a point of view that is both interesting and knowledgeable. He has a rather new approach to the events in the lives of these people and that is refreshing. I don't know if I learned much as I have read the books in his works cited, but it was exciting to read none the less!

While Mr. Philbrick may not shed any new light on the battle of the Little Big Horn, it does present the information in a storyline that flows not unlike the river itself. The assault on the Native Americans' way of life is but a mile marker on the imperialistic onslaught by a nation that has yet to receive just retribution for its actions. The narrative is filled with quotes from both sides in the battle and draws clear pictures of many of the participants such as Benteen, Reno, and Sitting Bull. I particularly found the maps included to be a big help as was the listing at the book's end of all the participants. In some 300 odd pages, the author has condensed many of the better-known accounts of this battle. In its completeness, this book ranks with Evan Connell's Son of the Morning Star. On a much broader scale, The Last Stand reminds one that human greed, both then and now, can only lead to the ultimate demise of civilization.

(This is the first book i've read on The Battle of Little Bighorn, so i'll leave discussion about technical accuracy to those who know far better than i.)

This book was, in a word, disorganized. I could possibly be charitable and say that it was simply organized in a way that i found impenetrable, but the net effect for me, as a reader, was confusion. The author has a tendency to digress frequently and extensively.

This means that, for example, in the midst of a discussion about why Custer may have made a certain command decision while approaching the Lakota village, we readers are suddenly, and without warning, taking on an 8-paragraph diversion into Custer's family life during his formative years. Then, that anecdote concluded, we're launched right back into his soldiers' response to his command. Similarly, the story of Custer's victory several years earlier in the so-called Battle of Washita is partially told many times, always wedged into a discussion of Custer's tactics or why Reno or Benteen hated him.

At other times, it was clearly a conscious decision made by the author to interleave two narratives, perhaps to juxtapose, but the result is whiplash. Near the conclusion of the book, the stories of the other columns of soldiers arriving at the battlefield in 1876 is interleaved with the story of Sitting Bull's life after the battle, concluding with his death in 1890. A few paragraphs of one, then a few paragraphs of the other, likely intended to provide a shared denouement after the battle, but resulting in a narrative tennis match with the text bouncing from 1876 to 1890 and back and back again.

An unflattering complement to this is the maps included with the text. The author provides detailed maps of the 7th Cavalry's route toward Little Bighorn, lovingly marking each spot where the column split or reunited, camped, had a meeting, stopped to stare into the distance, and so on. But once the action heats up, the maps peter out. The last shows the movements of Custer's soldiers right before the last stand, and where the Lakota harried them. Yet, for no reason i can imagine, and despite the verbal detail of where various soldiers fell, there's no schematic of Last Stand Hill itself, nor was Last Stand Hill marked on any map. A single color photograph shows the grave markers on the hillside, from a distance. You can't even see the one marked with a black badge to show Custer himself.

The author of this book goes into tremendous detail about the motivations and moral flaws of two of Custer's subordinates, Benteen and Reno, while nearly entirely withholding judgment on Custer himself. This is in part due to the fact that Benteen, Reno, and the soldiers around them survived to give testimony, while no one was able to provide such an account for Custer. However, with the mountain of evidence the author heaps up indicating that Custer was a glory-hound attempting to recreate his victory at Washita and get back into the public eye, he maintains an awkward neutrality. It added an odd sheen of Political Correctness to the history that i found obstructive.

Despite these several failings, The Last Stand is an informative history of the battle at Little Bighorn, the events leading up to it, and a glimpse of the aftermath. It should be especially interesting to those who want more character studies and fewer technical discussions of weapons or tactics, as it focuses almost entirely on the men and their operatic social interactions. It is, though, a book on soldiers and war, and readers should be prepared for some discussion of rape, torture, murder, and mutilation of corpses.

Very engaging read about Custer, Sitting Bull, and the events that led up to and followed the "last stand" (which I guess was more like our "most famous rout"). It makes me want to go back and visit the battlefield at the Little Bighorn again.

Highly recommended! It will interest you in the "Wild West," particularly its waning days when the Indian wars were drawing to a close. I very much appreciated the fact that Philbrick took an even-handed approach in presenting all sides of the story - those of the Indians, of Custer, and of Custer's own non-Indian nemeses/fellow cavalrymen. And that Benteen sure was an interesting fellow... I think my only quibble is that I would have liked to have known more about the casualty burden at the Battle of the Rosebud - I think that battle spooked the cavalrymen quite...

Nathaniel Philbrick's The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull and the Battle of the Little Bighorn is simply the most recent in a long line of books purporting to deal with Custer and the Little Bighorn Battle. I haven't read everything ever written. I have read over 100 books and articles dealing with this one event and own perhaps 40 of these monographs. Simply put, Philbrick's treatment of the Little Bighorn Battle tends to fall on the better end of the continuum.

One of the refreshing aspects of The Last Stand is the author's inclusion of hundreds of vignettes by Native Americans that are normally passed over. The extensive amount of research that Philbrick did is literally on every page. Mind you, there is very little here that is new. Almost everything in the book has been covered somewhere else. It is the items that he included and the resulting mix that has been so well handled.

For example, very few sources have sited the two troopers of C Troop, Watson and Thompson, who managed to survive the battle even though their entire Troop perished with Custer. Both soldiers managed to live to fight another day because their mounts simply gave out and could not keep up with the rest of the battalion. Both troopers had the good sense to stay hidden though, if their story can be believed, they covered a lot of ground before joining up with Reno's battalion. Thompson went on to win the Medal of Honor for his actions later that day. Philbrick, of course, also includes comments and observations from the more notable Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. But he also has recorded the lesser known participants and included their stories as well.

I've read many books relating not only to the LBH battle, but many historical accounts of battles both near and far in time. One of the high marks I give The Last Stand are the wonderful maps included throughout the book. Well done on this account! Studying battle movements is a lot easier when maps are included that show troop movements and engagements relative to the larger action taking place.

For many decades students of this battle more or less disregarded Sioux and Cheyenne participant accounts. It has become fashionable now-a-days to include what they saw and did on June 25 through June 27. Philbrick continues that new tradition and should be congratulated for doing so.

I should also commend the author and publisher for the wonderful Notes section at the end of the book. As in the case of many books of this type, it is often the notes section that provides even more insight into the events and how and why they occurred.

Of course, there was no last stand, or at least that is what the archeological record seems to indicate. That Nathaniel Philbrick chose to name his book The Last Stand is interesting. I suspect he can be forgiven for falling into this trap as so many before him seem to have done.

I highly recommend The Last Stand if you have an interest into the events of June 25, 1876.
Peace always

Nathaniel Philbrick is easily one of the most talented historian-authors out there. Each of his books is an example of writing history at its best. His work is not overly academic, its gripping and above all else it informs and entertains. With "The Last Stand" it is obvious that Philbrick has drifted from his comfort zone. But, he has come away with a really winning account of one of the most written about and discussed events in American History; The Little Big Horn. Some of the other reviewers here have criticized the fact that Philbrick mainly writes about maritime history and that he has no business covering Custer and the 7th Cavalry. I firmly disagree. I will admit that I was somewhat hesitant at first to pick up another book on Custer's Last Stand, but I am glad that I did. I devoured Philbrick's book in just a few short days. Its wonderful.

If anything, Philbrick has dared to tread dangerous ground. The history of the American West has so much to offer. Yet, authors and buffs alike are drawn to the same handful of events and characters time and time again; Wyatt Earp, Billy the Kid, and Custer among them. The Last Stand is a minefield of conflicting opinions and laymen historians. It is charged with all of the heated debate that typically surrounds controversy and a controversial figure, in this case Custer.

I too have read many of the popular accounts of this event; the best among them in my own opinion being "Troopers with Custer", and to an extent I agree with another reviewer here that few authors can offer much new evidence or surprising information. But I do not fault Philbrick with that at all. If anything, he has presented many of the primary sources (survivors and native warriors alike) that earlier works have in the past.

I will say this as well. The majority of the people who will read this book will already know the name of Custer, but as they are not students of the battle most of them will not be familiar with the names of the Junior Officers, NCOs or Private Soldiers of his command, or men like Herendeen, or the scouts, guides, and the native warriors. Now, thanks to Philbrick a new generation of Americans will come to respect the warriors and the survivors of Reno's command. Philbrick is not the first to do so, but he has given us a sharp reminder of what this battle was all about; not the question of what kind of leader Custer was or re-arguing the debates, but reminding us that in the end, this battle was about the young men who fought it, the collision of cultures, and the end of a way of life.

Nathaniel Philbrick's The Last Stand is an engaging account of General George Armstrong Custer's famous last stand against Sitting Bull in June of 1876. Mr. Philbrick's word is extensively researched and his description of the battles are quite vivid. We get great background info on Custer, Sitting Bull, Custer's officers like Marcus Reno, Frederick Benteen and his wife Libby. The details of Reno & Benteen's troop battles are extremely well written. The problem with the book is that it falls pretty flat on the actual battle between Custer & Sitting Bull. Obviously it is much more difficult to write an account of a battle where there were no survivors from Custer's side, but after building the book up to Custer's fight, Mr. Philbrick spends very little time on the battle itself compared to the other battles that occurred at the Little Big Horn. That being said, this book is a must read for any history buff.

My apologies to Larry Verne for using the title to his song for my review. Anyway, this was an extremely interesting book. I know that there have been multitudes of books written about the Little Big Horn battle, and I have read a few of them. This book, however, covers not only that battle, but goes back before it to show the development of both Custer and Sitting Bull, and forwsard to tell the story of Sitting Bull's death.

Since no one really knows exactly whar happened at Last Stand Hill, any book is going to be speculation, and the author admits that. He goes into detail about what eyewitnesses from the Indian side said, and also what was discovered two days later by the relief and burial party for Custer and his men.

Much more is known about the activities of Major Reno and Captain Benteen, so of necessity there is quite a bit more about them when it comes to the actual fighting. Once again the author uses primary sources, and his synthesis of what occurred on Reno Hill is very interesting.

The author comes to his own conclusion as to why this battle happened the way it did, and he doesn't spare Custer's reputation, as did many of the earlier authors, particularly Custer's widow and those who followed her lead. There's no question that Custer was a very brave, but in this case vewry foolish, leader, and his action led directly to his death and the deaths of about 200 or so of his command.

The book is well wriiten and documented, and the battle accounts are lucid, not confusing as can be found in some books about famous battles. This book is an object lesson in the results of command hubris, and if you are interested in American history concerning the West, this should be a must read!

If you are looking for a straightforward history of the events leading to and during the immortal Battle of Little Bighorn, you will be very frustrated... The timeline in this book will randomly shift a decade either way within a paragraph, and while factual, proved to be a very confused (and confusing) 'historical' textbook... I appreciate the early political back story, but what ultimately results is a completely unbalanced account of the misfortunes of Reno's story (some 100+ pages) versus a mere 21 pages of Custer's actual Last Stand, which is prefaced by 'What follow is a necessarily speculative account (pg 258)', and is largely told from the perspective of the Native American participants.... Lots of Appendices, but ultimately, this book fails to stand on its own merits...

Although I gleaned nothing new from reading this book, it is nevertheless very well-written and makes for a great summary read. One glaring oddity is the author's assertion that Custer "arguably" won the battle of Gettysburg. What the heck is that all about? Robert E. Lee is responsible for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, which essentially happened the first day of the battle with the failure to capture Culp's Hill. Many errors followed, including not listening to Longstreet's brilliant idea to flank the Union army and achieve both a tactical and strategic victory. The Picket-Pettigrew-Trimble assault was simply insane. Some theorize that Lee had eaten too many cherries which led to diarrhea which led to loss of electrolytes and affected his heart and mind. Who knows...but Custer's involvement was a cavalry fight in the rear of the Union lines while Lee's forces made the suicidal assault on Cemetery Hill. Such an absurd observation throws the author's research skill into serious doubt and undermines his book.

Nathaniel Philbrick in his new book "The Last Stand" take us down the familiar roads of General Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The book doesn't reveal much in the way of new history leading to the battle and the subsequent fallout but this is an engaging story and Philbrick keeps the action flowing. He moves the chapters between the US Cavalry and the Sioux/Cheyenne as he unfolds the icons that are General George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull. In Custer he gives us a man that "possessed an energy, an ambition, and a charisma that few others could match. He could inspire devotion and great love along with more than his share of hatred and disdain, and more than anything else, he wanted to be remembered." Philbrick would go on to explain that "some are remembered because they transcended the failings of their age. Custer is remembered because he so perfectly embodied those failings". On the other hand Sitting Bull comes across as a leader, a prophet, and a politician. Sitting Bull believed that "he alone had his people's welfare in view". Philbrick gives us the Sioux leader that demonstrated stalwart resistance and was looking more for peace than war with Custer. The book also shows the U.S. Cavalry rivalry conflicts that were taking place as each battalion sought to be the first to "engage the enemy". Much blame is spread around to Reno and Benteen for allowing the worst U.S. Military loss, in the American West, to happen especially during the National Centennial celebration of 1876. Philbrick lays out the many sources from the questionable Private Peter Thompson's to the detailed battle account of the Cheyenne Wooden Leg. All the sources certainly contain truths and errors with reality probably being somewhere down the middle. Philbrick presents but doesn't really come out and endorse any one source. The book takes the more broad overview of all fronts, both Indian and Cavalry, and uses the available sources well. In the closing chapter, he can't resist the easy temptation to get a little preachy regarding the U.S Government's treatment of the Cheyenne and Sioux. Nevertheless, it is well worth the read and addition to the history shelf.

Mr. Philbrick's account removes much of the shine from the Custer reputation as an heroic Indian fighter. With Philbrick, Custer has lost his status as a wholly sympathetic character and instead has morphed into a very flawed man whose megalomania overpowered his military training (last in his class) and cost the lives of some 250 troopers of the 7th Cavalry. He had set out to redeem himself even if, as Philbrick noted in Custer's words,redempton would cost him his own life. Never mind the lives of the others because they mattered little to him.

Custer discarded the value of good intelligence, underestimated the size (2,000 plus) of the enemy forces, divided his command into smaller units, forsook the advantage of superior firepower (the Gatlin Gun), allowed his supply lines to lag too far behind with too many troops unavailable for combat, depended on taking women and children hostages as leverage, devalued the tactical skills of the Lakota and Cheyenne Sioux, especially Sitting Bull, and then counted on a personal enemy,Frederick Benteen, and a drunk, Marcus Reno, to come to his aid. Further, he failed to wait for them, and fell into Sitting Bull's trap.

It is a gripping account of the clash of personalities, the petty jealousies and finally the battle itself. Mr. Philbrick's narrative makes history come alive.

Philbrick does a good job of avoiding black/white narrative on the U.S. government side of the coin. He notes that Reno was "diffident" as an assertive commander, as well as being drunk on the battlefield. But, he notes also that Custer was an idiot for repeatedly dividing his forces (after refusing to believe his scouts about the size of his opposition, to boot), and may even have paused before starting his own attack, just to make sure Reno wouldn't share in his glory. And, while Benteen gets his share of praise, he also draws some blame for being dilatory in his movements after getting John Martin's note from Cooke.

The biggest new threads from Philbrick are how Reno performed with a reasonable competency in steps before Custer detached from Gen. Terry, and on the character and skill of Terry.

As Philbrick sees it, Terry tried to have his cake and eat it, too, with how he phrased his orders to Custer and the comments he gave along with the orders. He was poised to let Custer take the fall if thins went wrong, but claim the glory himself if Custer won. Plus, Terry's larger command skills seem a bit wanting; he wasn't forceful enough with Gibbon, and he didn't try to coordinate with Crook (or vice versa).

In short, the Little Bighorn campaign not just the actual battle, reflected poorly on all the field officers involved.

Philbrick has little new to say on the Sioux/Cheyenne side; one will need to turn to other books for more of that. But, he does do a better job than some books on relaying the spiritual mindset of the Plains Indian in general, and some of the Sioux and Cheyenne leaders in particular.

But, even if not perfect in its depth, this is still a 5-starrer, especially compared with other recent books that attempt to rehabilitate Custer unduly. Philbrick does a solid job of laying out the lay of the land, the book has good maps, and plenty of photos. Plus, it fleshes out some "lesser characters" that don't get as much space in some books.

The author did a good deal of research on the subject and it shows. He weaves together facts and speculation to make a very enjoyable and believable story about a moment in history that still poses more questions than answers. Highly recommended.

I have read several books on Custer's famous "Last Stand," and found them oddly unsatisfactory. This was going to be my last try at finding a book on the battle - and it is a winner. The author has a knack for making sense of what happened, and why, and treats the main characters honestly BUT fairly dispassionately. Among other things, I came to admire, understand and sympathize with the plight of Sitting Bull and his people. Custer is, of course, a deeply flawed man - but his senior subordinates (and his military masters) are almost as flawed as Custer. If you tread only one book on the battle - this is it. If you have read others - you will be glad you read this one.

The good: This book was filled with facts, insight and a lot of great historical photos.
The bad: The book bored me because instead of a flowing story, the author jumped from one story to another and from one period of time to another leaving this
admittedly novice history buff totally confused about the chain of events. It's probably just me, but I put the book down after reading only about half of it.

The author gives a great account of before, during and after the Battle of the Little Bighorn. He also gives great insight into personalities and in relationships of all involved. A Great I recommend highly.

Very informative. The story moves quickly with suspense even though you know how it will end. Nathaniel Philbrick gave a good insight into what Custer, Terry, Reno and Benteen were probably think at the time.

I was always one to love reading about history and I heard about the mystery about what happened at the Little Bighorn got me interested that I wanted to look into this book even further. Now I have to admit that Custer was a person a lot of people respected, he should've never have been in the military in the first place considering that he never took the idea of command seriously, example being his time in west point where he got more demirites than anyone in history that he would've been thrown out of the academy if he didn't shape up. Sure the guy shaped up but only long enough to avoid from being kicked out.

Then while out on patrol looking for Indians did he show that when he was with his brothers and cousins tat they were out there playing jokes with each other. While in command of his troops, Custer showed that he probably was bipolar or took his job way too seriously!! I have a lot more respect for Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse since while having rather tough lives from the beginning they put the safety of their people first and were willing to fight for what they believed for.

Few events in American history are more surrounded by myth than Custer's Last Stand, and the life of America's most famous Indian fighter, George Armstrong Custer. In many ways the American myth is wrapped up in the Custer story. Nathaniel Philbeck takes great pains to accurately tell the story of Custer's last campaign within the context of the historical and social mlleu of the day.

Custer's story is paired with that of his advesary, Sitting Bull. Philbeck notes that in many ways this campaign was a last stand for not only Custer at the Little Bighorn, but for the way of life for both Native Americans and Frontiersmen. Sitting Bull is pictured as trying to find a way to maintain the ways of his people in a changing cultural context.

Philbeck paints a convincing picture of both men and of the events that surround this segment of their lives. It is well researched, brilliantly written, and engrossing. As combined reading with Stephen Ambrose's Custer and Crazy Horse, the reader can get a well drawn out picture of life at the close of the frontier period and the clash of cultures that led to the "Indian Wars" This is a must read for any student of frontier history

Last weekend, I picked up Nathaniel Philbrick's new book The Last Stand - Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (New York: Viking 2010). My casual scan through the book quickly turned serious as I realized how great it was. I usually don't have trouble putting a book down after an hour or two but I spent all of last weekend devouring this one. It is that good. Mr. Philbrick's research is very thorough. His portrayal of all the characters, both Native American and United States is tremendous. Mr. Philbrick's vivid narrative gave me a very clear understanding of Captain Frederick Benteen and Major Marcus Reno, Custer's principle lieutenants for the first time. Benteen is a fascinating character. Read the book and see why. The maps that accompany the narrative are first class. For the first time, I could clearly understand the geography of the Little Bighorn Valley and the movements of the various columns. Needless to say, I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested not just in this particular campaign but in this period of American history as well.

This author is entertaining. He does a good job of researching his history. This book is the most detailed account of the fight at Little Bighorn that I have ever read. I am not a history buff and I found this account both entertaining and educational.

I think I must have read a different book to the majority of the reviewers. I found it rather tedious and boring. The author concentrated more on Captain Benteen than Custer. The book was also rather disjointed with events in no real order. The author kept referring back so often than I was not sure whether it was 1876 or 1864. I am now reading "A Terrible Glory" by James Donovan and that is an excellent book which I would highly recommend over this one.

With so many reviews of this book already available online, I will skip a summary and go directly to my response: I loved it!

It's always fun to read a book (this one was a Christmas gift to me from my oldest son) which you can't put down. And this one is that. I also enjoy a book where the author/publisher has taken the time to gather plenty of photos, like here, of many of the people mentioned in the book. This helps make it easier to enter into the story.

I will say that this book presents a different view of the Custer I read about when a boy (I think the title of that book was "Custer's Last Stand"). There is little heroic about this book's perspective of Custer or of U.S. policy toward the Native Peoples. What a story of tragedy and failure of public policy, with roots in the Trail of Tears until this day. I always tell my students that I believe that U.S. policy toward the Indians is one of the great tragedies of American history. And this book confirms that.

This was my first Kindle experience. I love the convenience and readability. However, with this history, there were many maps included and they were completely unreadable. I know of no way to increase the contrast; all the maps were washed out.

....had passed before white people managed to end the Natives lifestyle.
This masterpiece by Nathaniel Philbrick (who keeps writing extraordinary books) presents the symbolic struggle of Lakota/Cheyenne and their last confrontation with the invaders. Even when I was a small boy, I heard about Sitting Bull and Custer. But now, after many years, I have finally learned the details and significance of this tragic battle. The book is so colorful and vivid that I could not stop reading. I still cannot stop thinking about characters and people involved, those who died and survived. I endlessly wonder whether the whole story could have less dramatic conclusion. Probably not..as history teaches us repeatedly about English-Indian relations; check titles in chronological order: "Mayflower" (end of East Coast tribes), "The War that Made America" (fate of Mohawks and other Great Lakes People), "Blood and Thunder" (subduing Navajo Nation) and "Empire of the Summer Moon" (pacification of Comanche).

Many of us who grew up with the legend of Custer, Sitting Bull and the Battle of the Little Bighorn had our vision from the typical Hollywood enactment of that famous battle. As usual, such sources are not accurate and Nathaniel Philbrick has given us a wonderful detailed look at the participants and what actually happened. The author describes in detail both Custer and Sitting Bull as to their personalities, leadership and the eventual outcome of their meeting. In addition, he gives us insight into the other commanders under both men and their involvement and support. Custer's subordinates, Major Reno, Captain Benteen and Captain Weir had serious problems with their intense dislike of Custer as well as their rivalry among each other. Sitting Bull was less flamboyant than Custer, calmer and, I think, a better leader. Philbrick's research on this historical event is fair, detailed and very complete. The reader can readily visualize this great story and battle through this very compelling narrative and draw his own conclusions as to just what happened. Once again, the author has shown his skill in writing history in a way that will delight you. If you love history, I highly recommend this book.

This is an absorbing, well-written, and well-researched account of Custer's Last Stand. I had thought that Custer marched into a canyon, was attacked from the high ground, and was wiped out with no trooper being able to give witness. The reality is much different. Because Custer divided his command into three groups, two of which survived, there are witnesses. But the last messengers who left Custer to contact the remaining companies are the last witnesses to what happened to Custer's companies. We can only speculate as to exactly what happened to Custer and the 270 or so troops he died with, though we do have a general idea that Custer attacked with confidence and then found he was horribly wrong.

Custer's mistake was not that he marched into a cleverly-laid trap. His fundamental mistake was to divide his command and to attack an enemy far larger than he realized. Sitting Bull, whose story is also told, was a gifted leader who patched together an enormous and mobile Indian community of 8,000.

Custer also failed to realize the importance of fire power. He left is gattling guns (an early form of machine gun) at base to improve mobility. And his mule train carrying ammunition was left in the calvary's dust. As a result he had very limited ammunition going into battle. Finally, the Indians were well armed. Indeed, about 300 of them had repeating rifles -- much better than the single shot carbines (prone to jams) used by much of the calvary. Without the advantage of firepower or men, and fighting an enemy well familiar with the terrain, Custer was wiped out.

The fate of the other remnants of Custer's command demonstrate Custer's errors. Reno hooked up with Bentene and the pack mules and was able to make a stand on high ground that repulsed the Indians. Had Custer went into battle with all his troops and ammunition and firepower, he could have fought off the Indians. Reno still almost lost the day for the remnants of Custer's command by drinking during the battle and by yelling "Every man for himself" instead of leading an organized retreat to high ground.

Even so, Custer almost pulled it off. He did manage to catch the Indian camp by surprise, and had Reno done his job by storming the Indian compound, Reno could have taken the civilian hostages necessary to persuade Sitting Bull to negotiate. In fact, Sitting Bull was inclined to work out a deal even before the attack. Custer had the option of negotiating but chose to attack instead. This was another great lost opportunity.

Philbrick points out the Little Bighorn was Sitting Bull's last stand as well. Things did not go well for the Indians after the battle, and their defeat was inevitable. White settlement destroyed the buffalo herds and grazing grounds on which the Indians were dependent, and sufficient troops were sent to the territory to compel a surrender.

Philbrick attempts to correct the early glorification of Custer as well as the contempt in which Custer was later held in modern popular culture. He gives credit to Custer's charisma and daring, and shows that Custer nearly pulled it off. But Custer's arrogance, contempt for the Indians, and strategic blunders caused his own downfall.

A very entertaining read.

The author is a very talented storyteller and has done a considerable amount of research for this book. The book is an excellent portrayal of the events leading up to George Custer's last stand against the indians in the late 1800s, although I didn't particularly appreciate some of his interpretations in his defense of the actions of the indian nations. In truth they committed many "unprintable" atrocities (the author does cite a few). However, in the author's defense, war is often unfair and ugly and the U.S. soldiers did carry out a few moderately atrocious actions themselves. Overall a very good book.

Two nights ago, due mostly to a casual interest in the folklore surrounding Custer's Last Stand, I attended a reading at a local bookstore by Mr. Nathaniel Philbrick regarding his just released work "The Last Stand". I hadn't read any of his earlier works and I'm not even a casual historian. I purchased his book that night mainly out of curiosity.

This morning I began reading his account of the events and personalities that intersected at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Within the first 20 pages I was gripped by a sustained eagerness to witness the lush detail of the introduction of each character and the unfolding of an historic event in exquisite slow motion. Pausing only for food and other necessities I devoured this book cover to cover. Having just finished the book I can say I found it satisfying on every level.

I certainly agree with other early reviews that Mr. Philbrick's account is painstakingly researched and goes to great length to be even-handed in how it treats both individuals and events. Inevitably, more time is spent focused on General Custer, Major Reno, Captain Benteen and the many other military and occasionally political figures among the "whites", but my sense is that this imbalance stems mainly from the more abundant information (interviews, journal entries, letters home, etc) that exists to flesh out that perspective. In the end Sitting Bull comes off the best overall but that seems to be a reasonable conclusion based on the accumulation of available evidence rather than the result of propagandizing. No character is painted as entirely good or evil and each portrait seems realistic. The addition of innumerable lesser characters adds richness and insight into each facet of the work.

Here is a story with which I was already sufficiently familiar that I knew every main character, knew the political and cultural dynamic, knew the geography and basic time line and, of course, knew how the story ended. Nevertheless, I found "The Last Stand" to be a spellbinding account made vivid not by fictionalizing or flowery prose but by letting the reader watch as what often seem to be minor events and trivial interpersonal relationships culminate in a deadly drama. I never had the impression that these elements were being artificially juxtaposed in such as way as to force them to hold special meaning. Rather, by the end I felt as though I had gotten to know how the strengths and weaknesses of each main character played a role in how the events unfolded. Mr. Philbrick invites conjecture as to how different personalities might have changed the events, prevented the battle or changed the outcome but he is remarkably restrained in indulging such conjecture himself.

I know that other early reviewers, as well as the author himself, have made a point to draw parallels between Sitting Bull and General Custer as charismatic leaders, how this in a way was each man's "last stand" and all that. I don't dispute it, I just didn't care about it. I immersed myself deeply in the sweat and sounds and courage and fear and dust and death that made up this violent entry in America's historic record. I don't have a lot of intellectual insights to add to these reviews. I just loved the book.

Philbrick does another masterful historical "novel" of this sad adventure in American History but does it in a way that it transports you back in time as if you are standing watching the event first hand.

This book is great. Philbrick's telling the much told story of Custer and Sitting Bull is balanced and extremely interesting. The last time I read a non-fiction book that so impressed me ( Path Between the Seas by David McCullough ), I went to see the subject of the book, The Panama Canal, up close. So, now I'm checking the cost of flights between Memphis and Billings, MT. I've already read and enjoyed Philbrick's In the Heart of the Sea. I think I'll take his Mayflower for reading on the Custer trip.

The book is in addition to being just an outstanding read, is also an extremely well researched book. The notes cover some 100 pages.

I liked the way the author combined the elements of the battle with a lot of political and personal embellishments.

Five stars all the way. Unqualified recommendation.

Nathanial Phillbrick has done American History a great service by de-mythologizing the Battle of the Little Big Horn and removing the vestige of Custer as the great Indian fighter or of the Native American's as these wise sages whose knowledge of the terrain helped overcome the arrogance of Custer. This is a very clinical book but offers a wonderful insight into one of the most famous, or infamous, battles in American history.

Phillbrick does a great job at showing that there were more than 3 men responsible for the outcome of this battle. His insights into Benteen, Reno and Terry are very invaluable. As his his overview of how each man interacted with each other, with Custer and with their respective commands. Lastly, Phillbrick does a wonderful job of showing how mistakes and the course of the battle led to the ultimate result of the massacre of Custer's command.

This is a very well written and concise examination of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. I would strongly recommend it to anyone who would like to learn more about a piece of American history that has not been well written about before.

For many, Custer's Last Stand is an Alamo-type story of Custer against the Indians and he has long been portrayed as a mythic hero. As Philbrick reveals, the story is much more complicated than that and Custer's battle wasn't the only battle the 7th Calvery had those days. This fast-paced account brings to light all of the persons and events leading up to the Last Stand and what happened afterwards. It is also as much about the natives led by Sitting Bull and the government's concerted war to take their lands. It isn't necessarily a bright spot in our history, but here the entire story is finally told. See also The Founders of America and 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus for more on native history.

I thought this book was really excellent. As always, Philbrick does a great job of bringing his subjects to life, but not embellishing. It's sort of "inference to the best explanation" history. he lets you conclude what adjectives could have been used to describe these people. I also like that he is not overly politically correct. There were some horrible things going on in the old west. Racism, raping, and murder. Philbrick doesn't shy away from giving you the whole story.

Not as good as "In the Heart of the Sea" (what is?), but still a very good book by one of my favorite living writers.

There is absolutely no basis for his "theory" that Tom Custer shot George Custer - though it is an expansion of the thoughts in the pro-Indian Humphrey Miller book of the 1950's, which were widely discredited and had no factual basis.

The book is chock full of mis-quotes, mis-attributed quotations and mis-references.

He lists a bibliography 26 pages long containg some 780 listings, of which less than 40 (5%) were originally written prior to 1950, with less than a half dozen being written prior to 1900. Does he really think the reader will believe he gained an intimate knowledge of all these "references" in the two years he studied the battle between writing books? I have studied the battle over 50 years and do not think I have an intimate knowledge of 780 books, though I did spend hundreds of hours reviewing microfilm records of the period. Who is he trying to kid, here?

Among his glaring omissions as sources are Whitaker's biographies of Custer, the reports of the War Department, the Executive Branch and Bureau of Indian Affairs to Congress of the period, the wealth of information contained in the National Archives microfilm records, and the writings of the survivors (including their diaries and letters). It appears all his "conclusions" are merely rehashes of the conclusions of current era writers and researchers, and his version of "research" is to read someone else's work and then recast it his own words, without determining if the theory is true, false or has any factual basis whatsoever. It is doubtful that he cites a solitary primary source in his biography, nor does it appear that he knows the value of primary source documents in a work like this. At best the work is a poor regurgitation of other works.

He brings absolutely nothing new to the table (no new primary source document or fact. no new piece of evidence to confirm or alter an aspect of the battle). How can he when his version is merely a rehash of other writer's opinions, some without any factual basis, inter alia Custer being shot at the river and then Tom Custer killing his brother.

Read it to test your knowledge and find his mistakes.

I read this book a couple of times and each time it delights me. The characters are charmingly old fashioned yet you can relate to them easily, the plot moves at just the right pace and you can't help but root for Major Pettigrew.
The last couple of chapters, after (spoiler alert) attempted murder are a little too much, but otherwise I can't recommend this book highly enough.

Philbrick's "The Last Stand" is so thoroughly researched. It reads quickly and easily, balancing well what is known and what is speculative, what is Native and what is European. Even the story of Comanche, the sole survivor on the soldier's side of the conflict immortalized in song by Johnny Horton, is touchingly told and documented.

Worth the read. The build up to the battles, including social and political background, is extremely interesting and informative. I found that from the beginning of the battles to the ending is a sprint. I would have preferred to walk thru it at a slower pace.

This is somewhere between the sixth to ninth book on the battle of the little bighorn or Custer or Sitting Bull. This one was OUTSTANDING! It is very well written, and has information about the various people involved, and or their personalities, habits, or ways of life, et cetera, that in many cases I haven't seen before. This is a very easy and entertaining read, and really gets hold of you--even though most people already pretty much know the story--or certainly the end.... A great read! I'm going to get me one of this guys other books.

Amateur Custer buff, read the usual books, been there four times, rode horseback eight hours along Reno and Custer paths. Like other reviews, he has some new facts and is a wonderful writer. (I particularly liked the Gen. Terry, humble man analysis.) But, his intent on a simplistic Reno drunk, Benteen could have saved Custer approach, is weak. He completely lost my interest when he started making up a timeline of his own on Custer's last stand, particularly having Custer literally waiting for Benteen. Custer waiting for a pack train of ammo? Not believeable. Jeff Lundy

I enjoy a good history book. When I saw the reviews for this book I was really excited. Having grew up in the west and walked the battlefield of Little Big Horn, I was looking forward to this tome. Then I felt I had not found a historical account about Custer and the Battle of Little Big Horn, rather it turned into a gossip sheet. At times I felt that the Mr. Philbrick was so excited with another tibbit of gossop he had found, that he could hardly finish the current topic before he was off onto another one. The book is very choppy when read. Mr. Philbrick's story does not flow well. There are some things of interest that this book has brought up, but I'm looking for another book to find out what really happened. This book will not remain in my library to read again.

I think several of both the 5-star reviews and 1-star reviews have a point with this book. For me, I think the actual "actions" from the Battle of the Little Bighorn have been told over and over again. Anything "new" that's added by Philbrick (such as Crazy Horse's comments about the Army's rifles overheating, Moving Robe's actions, etc) are speculative at best and outright bogus at worst. Also, I was really hoping for additional details regarding the aftermath of this battle including military inquiries. Unfortunately, these issues are more or less glossed over. Overall, the author's treatment of the subject isn't anything that you couldn't see on the History Channel.

This review is written in the fullness of a feeling that I must be missing something (I have most often felt that way in arthouse theaters while watching highly-acclaimed foreign films). How can it be that Nathaniel Philbrick, a man that I credit - in another review - with some of the finest nonfiction writing in America, could have written a 2-star book?

Alas, The Last Stand's early promise not only peters out, but the middle third of the book erases all memory of the good start. More regretable still, the "middle third" that I refer to is only the narrative fraction, the "middle." In real page terms, this third makes up more like 80% of the book. And, it is dull, difficult to follow, and neither rewarding nor novel.

I take some measure of pride that in my 2007 review of Philbrick's excellent Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War, before the Last Stand was on the horizon, I noted that "there is a glimpse of Philbrick's next work as he evinces a writer's proclivity to see elements of one motif in examining another. He repeatedly returns to the transmogrification of certain of the Pilgrim elite into a new type of uniquely American character: the frontiersman. Expect him to leave New England's briny coast for western climes soon."

That is exactly what Philbrick undertook to do in LAST STAND. Gone are the intrepid indian fighters of the Bay State. The stand-in is Custer, whom Philbrick at best portrays as a glory hound (if a prodigious one), and the new American ideals are "the dirty work of imperialism" (p. 4). The tools are steam ships, cavalry and soldiers: the "invasive species of empire" (p. 3) And, even as Custer lays dead and mutilated on Last Stand Hill, Philbrick cannot withhold judgment of the man who "had been, like the country he represented, unabashed in his greed" (p.278)

The exploitation of the Lakota is pretty well-worn ground, but - as above - Philbrick is not shy about letting you know where he stands. This is a departure for me as a Philbrick reader. Never in his past work - even as shipmates are consuming one another while adrift at sea in In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex - has Philbrick seen fit to impose his judgments on the morals (or even the actions) of his subjects. Here, it is manifest again and again. And, it does not feel balanced. On several occassions, he makes note of the Lakota's own propensity toward mutilation of American soldiers in cruel and bizarre ways. Still, he never sees fit to question their morality, even as he returns again and again to the cosmic comeuppance that is delivered on Custer after he defiles an indian burial ground.

There are some really great insights early in the book, where Philbrick set out to give context to Custer as a man and an American historical figure, to the battles on the frontier and to the post-Civil War politics of the day. This is where the Philbrick I am accustomed to shines through.

Again, he has an uncanny knack for mining history for analysis that is salient and relevant today. On pages 30-31, he has an elegant passage about the Lakota historical record, describing the "winter counts, chronological records in which a pictograph, often accompanied by some commentary, tells of the single event by which a year is remembered." It is impossible to ignore the obvious parallel to Custer, who is emblazoned in our national memory as such a solitary, static emblem of a time, yet one that is imbued with so much context and larger meaning. This is our American oral history.

Philbrick takes the comparison further, describing the way in which the winter counts "eloquently illustrate how completely the day-to-day world engages a society," and the resulting "self-containhed culture." Looking at comtemporary social media, the conclusion that we share so much with the Lakota of the 19th century (and, perhaps, all cultures throughout history) is unavoidable. Of course, the Americans (both now and in 1876) are trapped in the same cycle, and Philbrick ominously notes that when this obliviousness leaves a society facing inescapable catastrophe after generations of unfettered progress, it is "[n]ot so obvious, especially today...what a society about to confront such changes is supposed to do about it."

The beauty of Philbrick's work is this context. There is woefully little of it. Late in the book, he notes that Last Stand buffs "tend to focus on military strategy and tactics, the topography of the battlefield, and the material culture of the two opposing forces," at the expense of the "personalities of the participants." While he remedies that last shortcoming with in-depth study of traditionally ancillary characters like Marcus Reno and Frederick Benteen, he is not able to avoid the same pitfalls off in the high plains.

Dozens of pages are spent on day-by-day accounts of troop movements. If there is anything more boring than being a part of a troop movement, it is reading about one. Clearly he tried to use the march to Last Stand Hill to flesh out unfamiliar Reno, Benteen and the others who would play such an important role in the battle itself, but the effort is wanting. And, when the skirmish commences, there is no narrative crescendo. Instead, there is a blur of topography (depressions and draws and bluffs and cliffs to the north, south, east and west). Company letters, company commanders and a few too many "featured" soldiers overlap, and Custer himself is far from central. That may have been Philbrick's intention, but - if so - why subtitle the book "Custer, Sitting Bull and the Battle of Little Big Horn?"

Philbrick seems at pains on that very question, is Custer the center of this story? He brings to light some information that I suspect will be new to many readers not steeped in the Civil War or this post-war frontier fighting epoch. But, was Custer the blunderer made famous in American history and lampooned even in kids' movies like Night at the Museum? Perhaps not.

Philbrick has him commanding a cowardly and drunken aide who collapses in the face of what is later shown to be overwhelming troop AND fire power advantages for the enemy. He also has the surviving officers of the 7th cavalry holding return of the steam ship bearing the wounded for three days as the concoct an official report that dumps the massacre of their troop into Custer's lap.

So, perhaps he was the prodigy who made general by 23 and was presented with "the table on which Grant and Lee signed the surrender at Appomattox" (p. 48) by General Philip Sheridan in recognition of his Civil War leadership. Might he be both?

Philbrick leaves me with no answer to that question, but a much more thorough - and frankly, unwanted - appreciation for the tactical reasons behind Custer's defeat at the Little Bighorn. I know that Philbrick thinks that the battle somehow contributed to the eventual movement of the great remainder of Lakota onto reservations, but from his book, I don't understand why.

As ever, Philbrick's research was astoundingly thorough. The failure here was not reducing that to a compelling and informative work.

I always enjoy reading books on history that I'm not well versed on and this book is no exception. It tells the story of Custer, Sitting Bull and the battle of the Little Big Horn. The writing is superb. You really get the sense of what went on and what led up to the battle. This book will easily make my top ten books of the year! It's a great read!

Much has been said about the Battle of Little Bighorn. George Armstrong Custer has been portrayed as both an arrogant imbecile and a national hero. Sitting Bull has been portrayed as a murderous villain and a cultural icon of steadfastness.

Nathaniel Philbrick, as he did in his wondrous MAYFLOWER, digs deep into the heart of the legend. Custer and Sitting Bull were both men--human beings with faults and virtues, men who both appeared to desire peace, on the eve of the Battle--and yet, neither many any great overtures for it. Why? What drove these two men into what can only be described as a massacre? And what really happened at Little Bighorn that day?

Obviously, to the latter question, there is only conjecture, though Philbrick unbiasedly presents the various eye-witness accounts. When it comes to the battle itself, he places more emphasis upon Custer; yet it is clear that the purpose of the book is not just to describe the specific massacre, but to show how it was a last stand for two people: Custer, the most renowned Indian fighter in the West; and the Native Americans of the Northern Plains, who after that day faced a slow decline to reservation life, ridicule, and almost cultural obliteration. Philbrick's prose is smooth and readable; you don't have to be a history buff to enjoy this book. You just have to love a good story, and have an appreciation for what makes mankind both so great and so terrible. THE LAST STAND is another memorable work by Nathaniel Philbrick, and serves as a wonderful introduction into an oft-mythologized segment of American history.

As Tora! Tora! Tora! portrayed the attack on Pearl Harbor from both the American and Japanese perspectives, Philbrick has written extensive accounts from both sides of the Battle of the Little Bighorn (LBH). As a relative newcomer to the battle but someone familiar with several of Philbrick's other works, I was excited to see the author taking up this subject matter. As the book opens the reader is quickly introduced to very interesting character-developing stories from the pasts of both Custer and Sitting Bull. Once the hook is set, Philbrick draws us inexorably in to a tapestry of characters and situations which will culminate with the fierce battle at the Little Bighorn. Both sides of the conflict are treated very even-handedly with the author refraining from making moral judgements on either party. As the tale progresses many characters are introduced that helps the reader put human faces on the soldiers and warriors who will eventually meet with tragic results. Custer himself comes across as brash and glory seeking, while at the same time nuanced. Sitting Bull is portrayed as a thoughtful, spiritualistic leader for his people with increasingly anachronistic desires for his people. For both men their world is passing away. One feels that if Custer had had the sort of network-centric warfare that the US Army now enjoys the outcome would have been significantly different. A good leader can lead his men into combat, a great leader leads them home. By this measure Custer falls short of greatness, but as this book makes clear, things very easily could have been different. Drawing from writings, official inquiries, maps, drawings, and the latest archeological evidence Philbrick synthesizes a very cohesive narrative of both the battle itself and those crucial decisions that lead up to it. Particularly interesting and detailed are the actions and characters of Custer's subordinates Major Reno and Captain Benteen. These were two deeply flawed men who largely seal the fate of Custer's 5 regiments. Their actions during the battle are shocking and very maddening. These men were almost entirely inept. Between Reno's alcoholism and Benteen's seeming deathwish and hatred of Custer many of their men are unnecessarily cut down and Custer's regiments receive no help.

The book's suspense builds, along with the reader's foreboding as the 7th Cavalry approaches their destiny. As Custer, Reno, and Benteen go their separate ways the reader watches as Custer and his regiments ride from our view, hidden behind the same veil of the unknown that kept the Major and Captain unaware of their commander's predicament. The book does a good job of making clear the effect of terrain on the battle. Especially the problems with scouting, coordinating separate forces, logistics for ammunition and soldiers, and scouting the enemy's strength and location. Philbrick is also able to draw out the disparities in force size, and armaments. Soldiers firing guns must be on the frontline, preferably as broad as possible, while warriors firing guns from their frontline can be supported by others behind them arcing arrows down onto the enemy, allowing their effective firing line to be deeper and reducing the effectiveness of entrenchments. Details of things that were said in the thick of battle while bullets and arrows are zipping around fill the text and give the reader a strong sense of being behind the lines. It really is amazing that any of the soldiers survived not only from Custer's regiments, but Reno's and Benteen's as well. In The Last Stand Philbrick has given us a great telling of Custer's famous last stand and a well thought-out, I feel, believable sequence of those final events and what his strategy might have been . Here the American Indians' accounts of the climactic battle are heavily relied upon and yield very interesting details. Eventually, Sitting Bull's death is recorded in the book as well, bringing an era to an end.

The book contains three major sets of pictures spaced in every third of the book which allow the reader to better visualize many of the people involved. Particularly good are the drawings made by Indians who were eyewitnesses of the Custer and his mens' last stand. Throughout the text there are many B&W maps, displayed in context showing the paths and locations of the separate forces at different times. These were extremely helpful. Finally, there are appendices which detail the personnel of officers in each regiment which can be easily referred to and an extensive section of notes broken down by page in the text which reference the author's source materials, reasons why the historian has included them, and some discussions on their validity. By the end of the book I was now interested enough to go through and largely read the notes themselves as they are very well laid out and even contain further details not in the text that would perhaps break up the narrative too much.

If you are at all interested in what happened at the Little Bighorn that day in June 1876 I would highly recommend this book. Not only is it a very good, well-written, book for someone new to the subject but the serious student can use the resources here to begin to dig deeper. I couldn't look away. Also, if you like this one take a look at Philbrick's Mayflower, In the Heart of the Sea, and Sea of Glory, each of which is quite good. But certainly don't miss this one.

As the owner of over 40 books on the Little Big Horn, I found this book to be a nice, reasonably "light" treatment of the Little Big Horn. If you are new to this particular event in our history, this is certainly a decent primer. I would also recommend "A Terrible Glory" by James Donovan, and "Son of the Morning Star: Custer and The Little Bighorn" by Evan S. Connell which was reviewed (quite favorably) in Time Magazine when originally released.

If you aren't new to this topic, and are looking for new insights - they are not here (in my opinion).

This is a well written, pleasant book and recommended to those who have little knowledge of the topic. Recommended for those folks.

This is typical Philbrick; well written, thoroughly researched and complete in its scope. Philbrick was even-handed in his treatment of the Native Americans and Custer's troops, and I appreciated that. The Last Stand is a good read for any history buff.

Nathaniel Philbrick has delivered a wonderfully fresh look at yet another iconic piece of American history. The historian has made his career in such endeavors and his approach is refreshing and enlivening. By telling as many sides of the conflict as he could unearth, Philbrick avoids the pitfalls of taking sides in his story-telling, and the reader ends up with a clear sense of the humanity, the strengths and the weaknesses of all the major players.

About one fourth of the book is devoted to documentation for those who are drawn to further research or might perhaps take issue with the author's conclusions. I was content to simply read the tale of soldiers and warriors locked in a conflict much bigger than their small world, and doomed to outcomes that couldn't be fathomed in the moment. Who won and who lost, then and later, is still subject to debate, and the contribution of writers like Philbrick is to help us understand that history doesn't end.

Before I read The Last Stand by Nathaniel Philbrick, I thought of Custer as a hero that walked on water. After reading the book, I realized that he was another egotist that got himself and his men killed out of denial. What a bloated man.

The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn is a brilliant look into the battle of Little Bighorn, the causes of the lopsided fight and the lives of Sitting Bull and George A. Custer. A must read for those who want to know more about the battle and the legendary figures behind it all. Custer was a former Civil War general who becomes an Indian fighter and Sitting Bull was the leader of the Sioux. Sitting Bull matches wits and tactics against the flamboyant Calvary general in the Battle of Little Bighorn, the plains indians biggest victory and a battle that ultimately sealed their fate.

Highest recommendation possible.

"He completely lost my interest when he started making up a timeline of his own on Custer's last stand"...

This single comment above from another post in these reviews fully and completely sums up the books most glaring singular failing.

To that I would add that this book should only be read by those already VERY well versed in the battles long established baseline facts. Only those thus prepared will be able to separate where the author very subtly and cleverly shifts from established fact into his own fanciful theories. All too frequently this is the case, even within the confines of a single sentence or paragraph. Mr. Philbrick plays very fast and loose with his own personal suppositions, 'what might have happened scenarios' and the proverbial 'ifs'. The problem is that he does so while drifting back and forth through actual facts thus giving the false appearance of new 'truths'. Extremely deceptive given the way it's sometimes presented.

While not the typical Custer 'apologist', he is clearly enamored with him and goes out of his way to utilize those accounts whose testimony supports him while ignoring more reliable accounts that refute those he uses. He generally has little regard for Benteen and no time or respect whatsoever for Reno. Beyond that, he all too often seems to conveniently forget that there were 3 or 4 thousand very angry Indian warriors in the immediate vicinity while making it sound like Custer's battalion was on a pony ride in the park.

In short, the book purports to be a work of historical accuracy. In reality, it feels closer to a historically based novel. It is a tolerable read from an unusual perspective, but far, far too much unsupportable hear-say to be taken as anything close to serious study of the events.

Custer, Sitting Bull, and Little Bighorn have become iconic names in American history, but often only through a distorted lens. Like many other students, I learned that George Armstrong Custer was a buffoon who led his troops to disaster at the Little Bighorn and that Sitting Bull was a "noble savage" (to use the term that sums up modern stereotypes of 19th century American Indians).

Nathan Philbrick's The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn certainly provides a more nuanced and interesting account of that history. The Last Stand follows both Custer's 7th Cavalry and the Sioux Indian tribe in the weeks before and during the battle.

Philbrick did an incredible amount of research to reconstruct the events and characters in the famous battle. This is a long book and it is brimming with detail, from the geography of the area to the colors of the 7th Cavalry's horses. At times, I felt like he introduced the reader to every single member of the 7th Cavalry (he pretty much does in the appendices).

If nothing else, The Last Stand will probably force you to reevaluate these men. Philbrick isn't a revisionist and Custer doesn't get off too lightly. Nevertheless, there is much about him that most Americans don't realize. For example, he became a brigadier general at the age of 23 (23!) and played a crucial role at the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. He was also calm under fire and inspired pride among the lower ranks. However, he seems to not have managed his officers well. In the run-up to the battle, he seems surrounded by officers whom he doesn't trust and scouts who are more intent on politicking than providing accurate information.

Philbrick writes well, but at times The Last Stand can become a difficult read simply because it seems like he wanted to cram so much detail into the book, even when it didn't advance the narrative. One thing that frustrated me was that the narrative sometimes jumps to different points at time. For example, the Battle of Washita (1868) is recounted after preparations for the Black Hills campaign, but just before the Battle of the Little Bighorn (1876).

I wasn't crazy about how Philbrick develops characters. He tends to provide short historical pieces about the soldiers in the 7th Cavalry whenever they figure into the narrative of the battle. That means that sometimes, during the thick of the battle, we hear how some soldier who plays little role in the overall battle was a gambler back home and was married to a certain person. This breaks the flow of the narrative and, especially for readers unfamiliar with the history of the American West, can be confusing. If the character is really so important, we should be introduced to him before he becomes important!

Philbrick also sometimes essentializes characters by taking one piece of background information and claiming it is responsible for that character's personality or decisions. For example, at several times he points out that General Terry was a lawyer, and as such was cautious and phrased his orders in an ambiguous way. But that's also how many officeholders in a bureaucracy think and operate. It probably doesn't matter for smaller characters, but sometimes becomes a bit cliche.

I'd recommend this book to American and military history buffs. However, I would really only recommend this to somebody who was somewhat familiar with post-Civil War American history. This book is definitely not for readers with short attention spans. In retrospect, this might be a book worth rereading twice, once just as an introduction to the people, places, and events, and the second time to really absorb it.

This book covers in depth events in The West and draws portraits of many of the participants in those events, especially George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull. He makes the history they were involved in seem real.

The level of detail in this book is good in one way because it draws a picture of the events and the people involved. On the other hand, there is SO much detail. I found it daunting and slow moving. I really liked his book Mayflower, but haven't found In the Heart of the Sea or this book interesting or compelling.

Or something like that.

It's quite amusing to read people claiming that Philbrick is "politically correct" (a right-wing slur meant to denigrate anyone willing to acknowledge and value the experience of non-straight white male bourgeois). In fact, his strained attempt to equate Sitting Bull's intransigence with Custer's is the basest racist pablum. No matter how you slice it, the Lakota were fighting for their lives and the US government was fighting for money. To suggest that Lakota resistance to reservation life was a failure to accept a new reality is to demand that they choose abjection, lies, and abuse because it is somehow inevitable. What were the stakes for the US Cavalry during this war, and what were the stakes for the Lakota? Hmmm... Answering that question tells us a lot, don't it?

Let the flaming begin. I can't wait to read comments telling me how vicious inter-tribal warfare was, as if that excuses the genocidal (that's what you call it when a government extirpates a people from their land) campaign of the USA in the 19th century.

Possibly unintentionally, The Last Stand details military leadership skills and performance in the 19th century. Soldiers were allowed to disobey orders? Leaders were elevated in rank on the basis of their daring feats in battle? Officers who could quote Spartacus at Thermopylae but openly discredited their superiors in front of their minions? Drunks. Cowards. Custer was a kid playing a game. He publicly insulted and offended the President of the United States. He consistently and flagrantly acted without concern for his life or the lives of those who depended on his leadership. At those times when he realized that he had overstepped the boundaries of decency, he would clean up his act but only long enough to regain the confidence and trust of his superiors. How easily we are deceived by the trappings of authority as we turn a blind eye to the obvious flaws of character.

Mr. Philbrick does a superior job of demonstrating the depth and breadth of his research. If only it didn't appear as though he wished us to be impressed with his thoroughness.

The real story of the events and people at LBH will never be accurately told because the officers who knew the facts kept their mouths shut in deference to Custer's widow. They planned to say more when she was gone but she managed to outlive them all and the truth died with them.

Philbrick has turned his gaze from the sea to Little Big Horn in his latest work, "The Last Stand."

Philbrick is keenly interested in the leadership and dynamics of communities, usually aboard a sea vessel. In this historical work, the author examines the leadership dynamics of both Custer and Sitting Bull. The title of the book applies both to the "last stand" of Custer and Sitting Bull.

I enjoyed this book tremendously and will be gifting it to other history buffs.

After reading MAYFLOWER, I have very high expectations for Nathaniel Philbrick's works. That's why THE LAST STAND is so disappointing. There is nothing new in this book, and what I thought would be a fully fleshed out exposition on the times and context of this iconic battle turned out to be the merest perfunctory snapshots of American society, President Grant, and the political landscape.

The Last Stand reads more like an author's proposal to a publisher, or maybe even a roughly hammered out first draft. Philbrick is so heavily dependent on previous authors' works that the dust jacket ought to credit him as a "co-author".

I guess Western history really isn't his metier, his prior works being related mostly to ships and nautical adventures... yet this book seems like he didn't put his back into it, as he obviously did with Mayflower. The Last Stand is very "phoned in".

The historical information one can gain from this book is adequate, but the read is laborious and dull. The author must suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder. He consistently strays from the subject matter, almost in mid-sentence. While describing an event, he will stop to explain another similar situation or event. This alternate description may be as short as one sentence, or as long as a page, before he returns to finish his original thought or description. These descriptions occur over and over throughout the book and are nothing more than a distraction to the plot.

Examples: (1) While describing Custer's approach to the Indian village, the author stops to provide a one page ramble about the Battle of Killdeer Mountain that took place 12 years earlier; (2) The author spends several pages describing the unique obstacles steamboat captains encountered on the Missouri River and how the boats, themselves, were constructed to counter those obstacles.

After reading the first chapter of the book, I was so bored that I put it away and didn't pick it up again for nearly a year. I would not recommend this book.

I recently saw Nathaniel Philbrick's new book titled (The Last Stand)in a Barnes & Noble bookstore in Portland, Oregon. The same day I was sent a link to an NPR interview with Mr. Philbrick. I consider myself well versed in Custer history and all the mythology and lore which dates back over 170 years to his birth in New Rumley, Ohio in 1839. I wondered why another "Custer" book. After all there are over 5,000 in print since 1885 when his wife Elizabeth wrote three. Most have been kind and supportive of this brave American hero. It seems that every once in a while, someone thinks they can dig deeper and compare his life to Crazy Horse or as in this book to Sitting Bull. Why not write a book comparing him to Rommel or Patton? Why not write a book on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War (2011-2015)which compares him to another Cavalier-J.E.B. Stuart?

Custer was not vain-glorious or a meglo-maniac as he is described in a few books (not many) or in some 1950-60's films. It's curious that "Little Big Man", the movie, doesn't even come close to the book (in which he is not crazy or the villain). Evan Connell's "Son of The Morning Star" is the complete history of the North American Indian but the made for tv movie, while having some truth in it, still makes the "Boy General" look arrogant and vain.

I am surprised today that such a well researched author as Mr. Philbrook would say that Custer was the leading "Indian Fighter" of his time. Gen. Nelson Miles (also a Civil War hero) was far more effective. Custer was a great Union General officer of Cavalry. No one was more victorious than him from 1863-65. Even as a post-West Point graduate in 1861, he rose to stardom because he fearlessly lead his men into battle, whether a 1st Lt. or a Captain.

I want to know how the Battle of the Washita ended up in Kansas (as resported by Mr. Philbrick). Kansas became a state in 1861 and although Ft. Dodge was in Kansas, Camp Supply was in Indian Territory (Oklahoma) which is where the 7th engage the Cheyenne in 1868 at the Washita. The battle of the Greasy Grass (Little Bighorn) was in southeastern Montana, not south central Montana.

I would like to request these authors do their research on the Custer of the Civil War. Russel Means, former head of the American Indian Movement (AIM) and main proponant for the Custer National Battlefield to be renamed Little Bighorn National Battlefield, said that he felt it was stupid that a battlefield was named for a "loser". That would be like honoring General Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. I have news for Mr. Means, there is a large statue of Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg and many of his regiments and generals are honored there. The reason the battlefield was named for Custer was not for the four Indian fights he was in from 1868-1876 but for the 4 years of his successes to save the Union in the American Civil War.

Mr. Philbrick says Lt. Colonel Custer was a Brevet Brigadier General at age 23 just before the Battle of Gettysburg implying that it was only an honorary rank. He is correct but he was Major General (US Army) at 25, not breveted in 1865. He was breveted every rank from Major to Major General after Gettysburg right up to Appamattox Court House, but he was paid the rank of Major General ($8,000/year) until 1866 when the US Army downsized and he was promoted from his permanent rank of Captain to Lt. Colonel (7th US Cavalry). Lets remember that the young West Point Cadet who graduated last in his class (June 1861) would capture the 1st Confederate battle flag of the Civil War by the Army of the Potomac. He would also receive the flag of Truce on April 9th at Appomattox in 1865.

Thank you Mr. Philbrick for the comparitive study of Sitting Bull and Autie Custer but you can do even more if you focus on the "Custer America Forgot". As I listened to the great-grandson of Sitting Bull speak of his grandfather, the Lakota and Custer, It occurred to me that NPR could have invited Brice Custer (great grandson of Nevil Custer, the surviving sibling of the Boy General) which would have added balance to the interview for me and the American people who care about the whole truth. Maybe NPR needs to do more than be politically correct. Custer was a very deep individual and the story about his 57 year widow would be even more engaging. Just ask Mark Twain, who toured with her in England and India in the later part of the 19th century.

If Custer was such a failure, why were there over 10,000 Union veterans present when his remains were interred at West Point?
As for Mr. Philbrick, you are right about one thing you wrote: "Custer did Die for your Sins"!

Like many of the reviewers I have been a student of the "Battle of the Little Big Horn" for over 50 years. I was really looking forward to this book, but a few pages into "the Last Stand" I realized Philbrick was a revisionist historian with no idea at all how to channel the life and times of George Armstrong Custer. This lack of connection to the men and shape of the nation in the 1870's makes me wonder why Philbrick is even writing "history books".
First let me say that Philbrick has the most extensive notes and bibliography ever used on any Custer book. But as a so-called historian, Philbrick's writing for me has too many "cardinal sins". In plain english if you read the notes, Philbrick blantantly adds facts that are not true, not documented and in many cases outright lies about the "the Last Stand".
On page 4 the author makes the politically correct (for today) statement that the "Sioux refused to sell the Black Hills" and the "administration chose to instigate a war". It is clear from the beginning of the book that Philbrick has a very "pro" indian point of view and the "white man" in Philbrick's eyes' is the thief that stole the Indian's land. Not true. This is actually the true reason the Sioux Indian war began:
The Sioux never owned the Black Hills (still don't). They never had a deed or title to the land. The Sioux took the Black Hills from the Crow, who took it from the Blackfeet and so on. The Indians of the 19th century were all wards of the US government. There was over 400 tribes and all but 2 tribes were warlike. The government made treaties with these Indians which were contigent on certain rules being followed. The Sioux were given the Black Hills and other areas to use if they reported to the reservations and followed the rules of the treaty. The Sioux would report to these reservations in the winter to receive food and blankets and shelter, but leave in the spring to hunt buffalo in violation of the rules of the treaty (they would leave their areas and follow the herds). During the time the Sioux were off the reservation areas the Indian depredation claims would soar-- as would murders. If the Sioux were in US territory, outside their legal treaty areas and they found a pioneer family traveling or a trapper, you would be murdered and tortured. They were a warlike and vicious tribe. In a 4 year period outside of Denver over 150 horses were stolen (Sioux and other tribes had no problem stealing horses, to steal a horse in the West meant death to the horse owner, a man without a horse was as good as dead, so this is why this was a hanging offense). Homesteaders and miners were murdered and woman and children kidnapped. Now I am married to a wonderful woman who is part Cherokee and I used to attend AIM meetings so I love Indians. But this is the truth, next to the Commanches, the Sioux were the most vicious tribe on the plains. Captives were buried up to their necks next to ant piles, babies were often swung by the heels and smashed against rocks. Woman were raped over and over and when the Sioux were finished they often cut off their noses or ears or used burning sticks and burned their captive's noses off. It is well documented that some of the Sioux were cannibals and the Calvary chasing the Sioux after the Little Big Horn battle found empty teepees with hearts cooking in pots and foot- stools and tom-toms made out of human skin. Off the reservation the Sioux were "traveling Serial Killers" who made Jeffrey Dahmer look tame. Philbrick's constant efforts to make the Sioux appear like "happy hippies" hunting and fishing and peaceful is an out right lie. Read the US Government depredation claims from the period in this area. Utah and Colorado were often the scenes of these crimes and were outside the treaty area. The Black Hills were US territory and the Custer Expedition was legally valid.
Philbrick attempts to make the wily old medicine man Sitting Bull into a prophet like St. Paul and a general like Eisenhower--this is a joke. Philbrick's constant attempt to stress Sitting Bull's dreams and visions is laughable. The old chief was well known as a manipulator (even Buffalo Bill thought he was a clever "con man"). I could write all day about the things wrong with Philbrick's story but here are a few:
It is doubtful Crazy Horse was ever present at the running retreat with Reno. Although many Indians comment on Crazy Horse being at this battle not one of the soldiers or scouts reported seeing him. Crazy Horse was camped at the far end of the compound and for him to tell his men (according to Philbrick) to "wait and let the soldiers fire till their rifles jam" is one of the biggest lies I have ever heard. Crazy horse road a paint horse and painted it with "dots". Crazy Horse also wore bright shirts and had dirty blond hair. If he rode from the far end of the Sioux camp (5 miles) to fight with Reno's men someone would have noted an Indian that looked like this. The Indians also had no idea what rifles the soldiers were carrying or that these rifles would jam. In fact, till after the fight, the Indians thought they were fighting Crook. Also, Philbrick seems to give Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and the other chiefs the power to command the braves as if they were Napoleon. This indicates that Philbrick was swayed by meeting and interviewing too many "modern Sioux". No chief ordered any Indian warrior how to fight or attack. When a battle started all the braves were independent and fought on their own. Some of the Braves would count coup, some would kill and scalp and some would even fight awhile and quit. This is why the Indians were never going to win a war. It is well documented, during fights or battles some braves would even stop and eat or go back to their teepees and sleep. The truth of the last stand is that Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull get all the credit, but Lame White Man and Gall were the leaders that won the battle. When Reno charged the camp the braves poured out of their teepees and waved blankets and shot arrows at the horses. Lame White Man did the same thing when Custer charged down the coulee. This panicked the horses. Many of the soldiers were "green" and not good riders. Once thrown off your horse and out-numbered 20-30 to one they just didn't have enough bullets. That is the battle in a nut-shell. But Philbrick adds so many untruths in between the lines it is pitiful. The story of the killing of Isaiah Dorman was witnessed by over 17 soldiers, who all saw him caught in the open, shot in the legs unable to walk and watched many squaws and young braves stab him and beat him with rocks. Several also said his "privates" were cut off while he was alive. Philbrick's statement the "Moving Robe Woman" killed Dorman is not true (she never made this statement) and his story of "Moving Robe Woman" riding a horse and fighting with the braves is a fairy tale. No Sioux Indian Warrior would have allowed a woman to mount a horse and fight. Sioux squaws were treated as slaves and traded for horses. Braves had numerous wives. Squaws were no more than chattle to Sioux warriors. It is ridiculous to spread this tale. The squaws were well known to attack and mutilate the dead or injured victim (after the fight) but no Indian woman was going to mount a horse and fight. It just didn't happen. I could go on and on but one thing that I want to mention--Philbrick states that the mutilation of the soldiers may have been revenge for the Sand Creek Massacre! This is the most one sided and blatant attempt I have ever seen to make the Sioux look like decent citizens. The Sand Creek Massacre was in response to Cheyenne and Sioux raiding near Denver for four years from 1864-1868. Over 200 horses were stolen and at least eight farmers murdered including a 5 year old and 3 year old. All the victims were horribly mutilated. A drunken militia attacked the Cheyenne and mutilated them and they did display scalps and skins. This was an attempt to show the Plains indian that the "whites" were going to fight an eye for an eye. The Plains Indian had been mutilating victims for over 100 years. So for Philbrick to make that statement is as slanted as you can get and still call yourself "a historian". I could go on and on but just from an early statement where Philbrick says on page 14 "in the early 1870's the Seventh was sent to put down the Klu Klux Klan who were a "white supremacist organization" (paraphrased). In the early 1870's the Klan was not a "white supremacist group" but was an insurgent group formed to fight reconstruction and all the crimes committed by the Carpetbaggers and Copperheads. I would like to see a historian write the true story of one of the darkest times in American history and not try to be "Politically Correct" about the Klan and other southern groups that later became hate groups and were later "white supremacist hate groups". During Reconstruction freed slaves were made sheriffs and rape of the southern wives was common. Only appointed Yankees could hold office and southerners couldn't own firearms. The land and homes of many former slave owners were stolen and countless innocent citizens were murdered. It was so bad that Vicksburg,Mississippi wouldn't put up an American Flag on their courthouse till World War Two. Philbrick, like many revisionists choses to ignore this crime on American Citizens. Finally, for Philbrick to put so much faith into the words of the Indians of this current time is like the modern revisionists who think Davy Crockett surrendered at the Alamo (his body was seen by a witness, Mrs. Dickerson, but revisionists have Davy surrending and killed later in the day, I guess Mrs Dickerson was a liar). The Indians of that period lived and breathed "tale tales". Many of them will describe brave warriors flying in a battle, or bullets bouncing off a buffalo hide, or--quite often decapitated heads talking. For him to put so much stock in these words lets me know Philbrick was buffaloed himself by the native American Indian Myth..according to him these are peaceful savages with no fight in them unless provoked...Balderdash!!!!
Philbrick takes Captain Benteen to task when Benteen was the only commanding officer in the battle who "obeyed" orders. Custer ordered Benteen to "oblique left" with the pack train. Yes, Benteen stopped to water his animals, anyone who knows horses and mules would realize you can't go a whole day and not give an animal water. Philbrick even states that "Custer waited 20 minutes for Benteen to arrive while the Indians surrounded him"...this is according to statements by an Indian. Custer wouldn't have waited on anyone. What did the Indian do? Look at his wristwatch? Indians had no concept of time at all. They never ate, slept, hunted or fought by a clock. When asked by a person to relate time the best an Indian could do would say is: "it took as long as it took to eat a meal"...how long was that? 10 minutes? an hour?
Benteen did not tary on the trail and Terence Donovan proved this with scientific fact in his wonderful book "A Brazen Trumpet"....read it instead of this propaganda....

A simple analogy sums up Philbrick's story best: Indians good, cowboys bad. If you thought Hanoi Jane's visit with the NVA in 1972 was a hoot then you will love this book. Philbrick hates America. Example: (page 302) he calls America's Manifest Destiny a "bloodstained march across the west" yet he devotes only one sentence (page 30) to the Dakota War of 1862 when Little Crow slaughtered hundreds of settlers in Minnesota. Blood, sweat and tears seems more apropos and fair, sir. The entire book follows suite. Military conquest wasn't invented in 1876 but Philbrick wants you to believe it was. I imagine his next offering will detail the plight of Islamists in America and how the US got what it deserved. Please, read A Terrible Glory by James Donovan or Son of the Morning Star by Evan Connell instead. Thank you.