What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Days of George Armstrong Custer: The True Story of the Battle of the Little Bighorn
In this thrilling narrative history of George Armstrong Custer's death at the Little Bighorn, award-winning historian Thom Hatch puts to rest the questions and conspiracies that have made Custer's last stand one of the most misunderstood events in American history. While numerous historians have investigated the battle, what happened on those plains hundreds of miles from even a whisper of civilization has been obscured by intrigue and deception starting with the very first shots fired. Custer's death and the defeat of the 7th Calvary by the Sioux was a shock to a nation that had come to believe that its westward expansion was a matter of destiny. While the first reports defended Custer, many have come to judge him by this single event, leveling claims of racism, disobedience, and incompetence. These false claims unjustly color Custer's otherwise extraordinarily life and fall far short of encompassing his service to his country. By reexamining the facts and putting Custer within the context of his time and his career as a soldier, Hatch's The Last Days of George Armstrong Custer reveals the untold and controversial truth of what really happened in the valley of the Little Bighorn, making it the definitive history of Custer's last stand. This history of charging cavalry, desperate defenses, and malicious intrigue finally sets the record straight for one of history's most dynamic and misunderstood figures.
383 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 3, 2015
8 people are currently reading
376 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
Read
February 1, 2024This slim book covers all the famous highlights of the Custer story in order to build to a controversial, unconventional assessment of the Battle of the Little Bighorn, but his shocking conclusions were common a century ago. There's lively writing, but not all the lively writing in the world can exonerate poor "Armstrong." My full review here: https://www.stevedonoghue.com/review-...
October 14, 2018
I echo many of the comments here. I read this immediately after Philbrick's The Last Stand (which I preferred), so I appreciated Hatch's counterpoint(s) of Custer's actions.
My only comment is: As brilliant as his plan may have been - he did an abyssmal job communicating it with the rest of the regiment. Hatch makes the point over and over that the subordinates did not follow orders, as they are compelled to do in military chain of command. From the accounts given, Custer did not do an effective job of communicating the overall mission. Maybe he, as the commander, did not have to - but it sure would have helped. Further - as a leader - if his subordinates were not doing what he want them to do, it is on his shoulders. Reno didn't start drinking that day; likely it was a breakdown of discipline that did not start at Little Bighorn, but many years before.
Anyways - I thought it was an OK read. Paired with The Last Stand (Philbrick), it provided some balance. The truth, especially in these sort of things where it can't be known with certainty, is usually somewhere in the middle.
My only comment is: As brilliant as his plan may have been - he did an abyssmal job communicating it with the rest of the regiment. Hatch makes the point over and over that the subordinates did not follow orders, as they are compelled to do in military chain of command. From the accounts given, Custer did not do an effective job of communicating the overall mission. Maybe he, as the commander, did not have to - but it sure would have helped. Further - as a leader - if his subordinates were not doing what he want them to do, it is on his shoulders. Reno didn't start drinking that day; likely it was a breakdown of discipline that did not start at Little Bighorn, but many years before.
Anyways - I thought it was an OK read. Paired with The Last Stand (Philbrick), it provided some balance. The truth, especially in these sort of things where it can't be known with certainty, is usually somewhere in the middle.
August 21, 2022
A Custer apologist’s account of what really happened at the Little Bighorn. According to Hatch, the “truth” is it was all Reno and Benteen’s fault. Reno failed to assault the Indian’s camp. He and Benteen then both failed to come to Custer’s aid.
Hatch praises Custer’s failures to follow orders but ostracizes both Reno and Benteen for doing so.
He makes the claim that if Reno had assaulted the Indian encampment as ordered he would have caused the Indians to flee. The small band of warriors that Reno initially charged after were soon joined by 800 warriors swarming out of the encampment. There would be no fleeing of Indian warriors this day. They had come to fight.
If Reno had come to Custer's aid his troopers would have been killed to the man too. The Indians had such overwhelming numbers and fire power that they would have slaughtered Custer's entire command, Benteen and his troopers included. Custer's main fault was not keeping his command together and waiting for Crook to arrive instead of fool heartedly ordering an attack.
Much has been said about Custer being such a great Indian fighter. Based on what? The massacre at Washita? There, Hatch claims, “Custer had faced overwhelming numbers of warriors and had escaped with minimal casualties” to which I say “Bullshit”. Custer’s forces outnumbered Indians at Washita. His troops made a surprise attack on a peaceful camp and killed as many women and children as they did Indian braves. There were some 50 native lodges at Washita. There were more than twenty times that at Little Big Horn. The encampment there was three miles long.
According to Hatch in all likelihood Custer “watched his two brothers fall and his nephew and others who were near and dear to him” in the last moments before his death. I’d argue that it is just as likely that Custer was shot at the Medicine Trail Coulee and fell mortally wounded into the waters there. He was then placed back onto his horse and led back to his final resting place. I’ll double-down and say that it is likely that his brother Tom shot him in the head to keep him from falling into the hands of the Indian warriors.
All-in-all I’d say that fellow apologist Libby Custer would have been happy with this account. I say skip it.
Hatch praises Custer’s failures to follow orders but ostracizes both Reno and Benteen for doing so.
He makes the claim that if Reno had assaulted the Indian encampment as ordered he would have caused the Indians to flee. The small band of warriors that Reno initially charged after were soon joined by 800 warriors swarming out of the encampment. There would be no fleeing of Indian warriors this day. They had come to fight.
If Reno had come to Custer's aid his troopers would have been killed to the man too. The Indians had such overwhelming numbers and fire power that they would have slaughtered Custer's entire command, Benteen and his troopers included. Custer's main fault was not keeping his command together and waiting for Crook to arrive instead of fool heartedly ordering an attack.
Much has been said about Custer being such a great Indian fighter. Based on what? The massacre at Washita? There, Hatch claims, “Custer had faced overwhelming numbers of warriors and had escaped with minimal casualties” to which I say “Bullshit”. Custer’s forces outnumbered Indians at Washita. His troops made a surprise attack on a peaceful camp and killed as many women and children as they did Indian braves. There were some 50 native lodges at Washita. There were more than twenty times that at Little Big Horn. The encampment there was three miles long.
According to Hatch in all likelihood Custer “watched his two brothers fall and his nephew and others who were near and dear to him” in the last moments before his death. I’d argue that it is just as likely that Custer was shot at the Medicine Trail Coulee and fell mortally wounded into the waters there. He was then placed back onto his horse and led back to his final resting place. I’ll double-down and say that it is likely that his brother Tom shot him in the head to keep him from falling into the hands of the Indian warriors.
All-in-all I’d say that fellow apologist Libby Custer would have been happy with this account. I say skip it.
May 23, 2019
Hagiography. The inherent danger in seeing no wrong in a person, especially if you are claiming to write history, is that you as historian may be hoist on your own petard. Thom Hatch, with his worship of Custer, has blown himself so high that he may never hit the ground. While the dust jacket tells us that Hatch will "set the record straight" all he actually does is make the reader question his interpretation of events.
And there is plenty of interpretation on offer to everyone, not only about the Battle of the Little Bighorn itself, but in many other aspects of Custer's career. Hatch, in every interpretation he makes, sides with Custer, and at times what he doesn't write in his book tells the reader as much as what he does.
Despite what the title suggests, this book not only delves into the last days of Custer's life, but also gives us over a hundred pages of preliminaries, covering most of the life and career of Custer. Hatch passes over Custer's less-than-stellar time at West Point, excusing his record number of demerits and low pass mark as the result of "youthful exuberance". Whilst not going into great detail, Hatch writes of Custer's Civil War as a triumphal progress as he does of his subsequent efforts against the Indians. By this part of the book it's clear to the reader that we are reading a one-sided account of events.
Hatch then goes on to describe the prelude to, and the Battle of, Little Bighorn relatively accurately. It is when he comes to his analysis that we again see his bias emerge. He is determined not to allow any opprobrium stick to his glorious General.
Hatch puts the entire blame for the failure of the Cavalry at Little Bighorn onto Major Reno's failed charge on the Indian village. While on one page he is equating Reno's failure to carry out Custer's order to the letter as a capital offence, in the next he incidentally shows us several reasons why Reno acted as he did: he thought Custer was coming along behind him, and Reno had no experience fighting Indians. One could, contra Hatch, just as easily argue that, given Custer knew Reno had not fought against Indians before, that he should have been much more explicit with his order, and in explaining what his tactics were to be. If - as Hatch contends - Reno's charge was the key to victory or defeat, it would have been well for Custer to do so. Reno was in fact second-in-command on the day and it would have been reasonable and even expected that Custer would discuss his overall tactics with him.
It is clear that Reno suffered from Battle Shock after the first contact at Little Bighorn, and his behaviour was far from what should have been expected from an officer, but it is a long bow to draw to place the entire failure of the Cavalry down to his ineffectual charge.
The irony of this excoriation of Reno for not following orders to the letter, after praising Custer for doing the same during the Civil War, is not lost on the reader, although it seems to be so to the author. Even with Hatch's idolisation of Custer throughout this book, it is clear in these pages that while Custer was no doubt personally brave, he was also reckless and impulsive. To attack what was as far as is known the largest Indian encampment ever seen on the Plains without even a reconnoitre of the lay of the land, or knowing if the River was passable, was reckless in the extreme, even if time was of the essence to catch the Indians by surprise.
Hatch describes how Custer almost had a "set play" for his battles against Indians - attack the front of the encampment with some troops, outflank and catch the Indians as they regroup or flee with the rest. This worked previously, but it seems that this time, under the aggressive leadership of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Gall the Indians had decided to stand and fight. They outnumbered the Cavalry by five-to-one.
There is no knowing what the outcome of the Battle would have been if Reno had continued his charge; Hatch assumes that Custer would have come in on the flank to an easy victory. An equally realistic scenario is Reno and his men being cut down in the maze of tepees while Custer was held off at the river before the weight of numbers forced him to retreat, or to suffer defeat.
The reality of course is that no one thing caused the disaster. If General Crook had notified Terry and Custer of his battle on the Rosebud, if Custer had better knowledge of the size and location of the village, yes, if Reno had charged into the village, if Benteen had kept moving toward Custer with the pack train, if Custer had retreated toward Benteen and Reno when he was still able, if Custer had got his men together in a defensive position early enough, if, if, if. The enormous amount of Little Bighorn literature spawns from these ifs, and a lot of it is better thought-out and argued than Hatch's book.
Hatch also, to my mind, borders on the offensive when he brands the Indians as enemies of the United States, and of progress, writing "The United States had every right to expand its boundaries to include the Great Plains West. Oddly enough, many modern scholars believe there was something honorable about the Sioux fighting to defend their right to roam free. The West was becoming too small and populated to allow a group advocating violence to close off thousands of square miles.....Peace entreaties had been made and were dismissed." The disingenuousness of this paragraph, the last sentence in particular, is astounding. Peace entreaties had indeed been made, and regularly broken, by the United States Government. The Black Hills had been given in perpetuity to the Indian tribes and then taken away, as had many other locations across the West. What resort did the Indians have but to try to keep what was theirs by force, as negotiation and treaty had failed time and again. And surely there is honour in fighting for your freedom: I have no doubt Hatch, a Vietnam Veteran, would claim that himself. To state that there is honour in fighting for your way of life is not to denigrate the bravery of Custer, or of the Seventh Cavalry, who were on the right and wrong side of history at the same time, as were the Indians. By pushing his feelings too far, Hatch undermines himself, the petard explodes again.
There are better places to start with the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer, and indeed the American West, than with this book.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
And there is plenty of interpretation on offer to everyone, not only about the Battle of the Little Bighorn itself, but in many other aspects of Custer's career. Hatch, in every interpretation he makes, sides with Custer, and at times what he doesn't write in his book tells the reader as much as what he does.
Despite what the title suggests, this book not only delves into the last days of Custer's life, but also gives us over a hundred pages of preliminaries, covering most of the life and career of Custer. Hatch passes over Custer's less-than-stellar time at West Point, excusing his record number of demerits and low pass mark as the result of "youthful exuberance". Whilst not going into great detail, Hatch writes of Custer's Civil War as a triumphal progress as he does of his subsequent efforts against the Indians. By this part of the book it's clear to the reader that we are reading a one-sided account of events.
Hatch then goes on to describe the prelude to, and the Battle of, Little Bighorn relatively accurately. It is when he comes to his analysis that we again see his bias emerge. He is determined not to allow any opprobrium stick to his glorious General.
Hatch puts the entire blame for the failure of the Cavalry at Little Bighorn onto Major Reno's failed charge on the Indian village. While on one page he is equating Reno's failure to carry out Custer's order to the letter as a capital offence, in the next he incidentally shows us several reasons why Reno acted as he did: he thought Custer was coming along behind him, and Reno had no experience fighting Indians. One could, contra Hatch, just as easily argue that, given Custer knew Reno had not fought against Indians before, that he should have been much more explicit with his order, and in explaining what his tactics were to be. If - as Hatch contends - Reno's charge was the key to victory or defeat, it would have been well for Custer to do so. Reno was in fact second-in-command on the day and it would have been reasonable and even expected that Custer would discuss his overall tactics with him.
It is clear that Reno suffered from Battle Shock after the first contact at Little Bighorn, and his behaviour was far from what should have been expected from an officer, but it is a long bow to draw to place the entire failure of the Cavalry down to his ineffectual charge.
The irony of this excoriation of Reno for not following orders to the letter, after praising Custer for doing the same during the Civil War, is not lost on the reader, although it seems to be so to the author. Even with Hatch's idolisation of Custer throughout this book, it is clear in these pages that while Custer was no doubt personally brave, he was also reckless and impulsive. To attack what was as far as is known the largest Indian encampment ever seen on the Plains without even a reconnoitre of the lay of the land, or knowing if the River was passable, was reckless in the extreme, even if time was of the essence to catch the Indians by surprise.
Hatch describes how Custer almost had a "set play" for his battles against Indians - attack the front of the encampment with some troops, outflank and catch the Indians as they regroup or flee with the rest. This worked previously, but it seems that this time, under the aggressive leadership of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Gall the Indians had decided to stand and fight. They outnumbered the Cavalry by five-to-one.
There is no knowing what the outcome of the Battle would have been if Reno had continued his charge; Hatch assumes that Custer would have come in on the flank to an easy victory. An equally realistic scenario is Reno and his men being cut down in the maze of tepees while Custer was held off at the river before the weight of numbers forced him to retreat, or to suffer defeat.
The reality of course is that no one thing caused the disaster. If General Crook had notified Terry and Custer of his battle on the Rosebud, if Custer had better knowledge of the size and location of the village, yes, if Reno had charged into the village, if Benteen had kept moving toward Custer with the pack train, if Custer had retreated toward Benteen and Reno when he was still able, if Custer had got his men together in a defensive position early enough, if, if, if. The enormous amount of Little Bighorn literature spawns from these ifs, and a lot of it is better thought-out and argued than Hatch's book.
Hatch also, to my mind, borders on the offensive when he brands the Indians as enemies of the United States, and of progress, writing "The United States had every right to expand its boundaries to include the Great Plains West. Oddly enough, many modern scholars believe there was something honorable about the Sioux fighting to defend their right to roam free. The West was becoming too small and populated to allow a group advocating violence to close off thousands of square miles.....Peace entreaties had been made and were dismissed." The disingenuousness of this paragraph, the last sentence in particular, is astounding. Peace entreaties had indeed been made, and regularly broken, by the United States Government. The Black Hills had been given in perpetuity to the Indian tribes and then taken away, as had many other locations across the West. What resort did the Indians have but to try to keep what was theirs by force, as negotiation and treaty had failed time and again. And surely there is honour in fighting for your freedom: I have no doubt Hatch, a Vietnam Veteran, would claim that himself. To state that there is honour in fighting for your way of life is not to denigrate the bravery of Custer, or of the Seventh Cavalry, who were on the right and wrong side of history at the same time, as were the Indians. By pushing his feelings too far, Hatch undermines himself, the petard explodes again.
There are better places to start with the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Custer, and indeed the American West, than with this book.
Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 30, 2018
While I did learn something about Custer and Little Bighorn I was bothered by the attitude that was put forth by the author. That being, that the US government had every right to expand its boundaries to include the Great Plains West. Every right to bring death and destruction to the Native Americans and their culture or as the author put it, "To solve the Indian problem." Also, I do find it honorable the Natives fought to protect their right to roam and live as they had before the US government had taken the land by force and false "peace" treaties.
May 27, 2020
Good read. Although the fighting in the Civil War was much different than the Indian battles, when Custer was given an order, he followed it. If he'd received that same support from Reno and especially Benteen, and if Crook had not wasted two weeks fishing and hunting at Big Goose Creek, it might not have been his last stand. It might not have been a victory, but maybe many of Custer's men and Custer himself would have lived to fight another day.
October 14, 2025
A disappointing book. Irrespective of how perfect a plan Custer had three things are important to know:
1. It must be communicated to subordinate commanders
2. The enemy gets a vote
3. No plan survives first contact with the enemy
1. It must be communicated to subordinate commanders
2. The enemy gets a vote
3. No plan survives first contact with the enemy
April 6, 2019
Good read
Although I don't agree with everything he wrote, it was a good read. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the battle
Although I don't agree with everything he wrote, it was a good read. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the battle
March 3, 2024
Somehow this site does not keep reviews when you move them around in folders. Please change that.
I already wrote review but poof gone.
I already wrote review but poof gone.
September 27, 2020
This was another book club selection for me and I did not know what to expect. I started with only a small interest in the subject. I thought it was well researched and written with the right amount of detail without digressing into other subjects. This is the only detailed account I've read about Custer or the Battle of the Little Big Horn and I have no argument with the author's conclusions about why this tragedy happened and who bore responsibility. He does appear to be defensive towards Custer and offended at some of the other analyses by historians and other authors. I make no final judgment because it is apparently a controversial subject, and I would want to read other opinions about Custer as a person and military leader and the Battle of the little Big Horn.
August 5, 2015
This is very tough for me to give a book such a poor review. I have always been fascinated by the Battle of the Little Bighorn and did a grad school project on changes at the battlefield site. I grabbed this book at the library because it was a new book on Custer and I hadn't read a book on him in a while. The book was definitely not what I was expecting. Here are two quotes from the introduction:
"One of the greatest, if not the most enduring myths in American history is that George Armstrong Custer made a tactical blunder in the Battle of the Little Bighorn and consequently sacrificed the lives of over two hundred men." THAT is the most enduring myth in American history?
"This book assuredly is not a read for the thin-skinned or fainthearted who cannot handle blunt statements, harsh judgments, barbed wire criticism, or graphic details and need their history doled out in warm and fuzzy familiarity. It is time to cast aside this Custer myth and allow the evidence to lead us to a proper and plausible verdict." The problem is that the author has no interest in following the facts. He is so fixated on righting the "wrongs" against Custer that his arguments often end up back-firing.
Custer was a man of immense personal bravery and had a tremendous record in the Civil War. There the author does a good job of showing that. But the battles of the Civil War do not translate to success fighting Native Americans. The author's argument boils down to Custer's "plan was nothing short of brilliant" and that it was the failure of his subordinates who caused the debacle. Custer divided his force into 3 main parts, as he had done at the Battle of Washita in 1868. The author makes this comparison, but fails to acknowledge that Custer had less troops at Bighorn, but faced approximately 1500 lodges there vs. the 51 he faced at Washita. One would think if you were worried about facts, you would address that. A subordinate named Marcus Reno was supposed to attack the village from one end while Custer attacked from the other end. Reno's attack was supposed to get the attention of the Sioux, which he did. His unit then retreated to bluffs overlooking the river. The author repeatedly focuses on this fact, that Reno was supposed to charge the village, but since he stopped short and then retreated, he should have been shot or arrested by his own troops. Another soldier named Benteen was guarded the supply wagons. He received orders to "bring packs" (ammunition) to Custer, but found Reno's troops and supported them instead. Again, the author doesn't address what would have happened to a mule train in the middle of a combat zone. Custer's plan was perfect, just let down by his subordinates. To that, I paraphrase, the German general Helmuth von Moltke: "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy."
Over and over my frustrations were with how over the top the author supported Custer. No one can give a full explanation for why Little Bighorn happened. He does make some good points, such as the lack of criticism of Crook over his defeat at Rosebud. But his blindness towards ANY criticism of Custer defeats this book. Yes, Reno certainly made mistakes, but so did Custer.
On a side note, the poor editing also drove me crazy. The Treaty of Fort Laramie changes date multiple times and Custer apparently had a time machine because he participated in a campaign in 1974. Paragraph long summaries of the individual soldier would have been better than the usual page and a half he did as well. Finally, use a thesaurus! Benteen "dawdled" and Native Americans launched "incessant" attacks. Over and over... Unless you love Custer, avoid at all costs.
"One of the greatest, if not the most enduring myths in American history is that George Armstrong Custer made a tactical blunder in the Battle of the Little Bighorn and consequently sacrificed the lives of over two hundred men." THAT is the most enduring myth in American history?
"This book assuredly is not a read for the thin-skinned or fainthearted who cannot handle blunt statements, harsh judgments, barbed wire criticism, or graphic details and need their history doled out in warm and fuzzy familiarity. It is time to cast aside this Custer myth and allow the evidence to lead us to a proper and plausible verdict." The problem is that the author has no interest in following the facts. He is so fixated on righting the "wrongs" against Custer that his arguments often end up back-firing.
Custer was a man of immense personal bravery and had a tremendous record in the Civil War. There the author does a good job of showing that. But the battles of the Civil War do not translate to success fighting Native Americans. The author's argument boils down to Custer's "plan was nothing short of brilliant" and that it was the failure of his subordinates who caused the debacle. Custer divided his force into 3 main parts, as he had done at the Battle of Washita in 1868. The author makes this comparison, but fails to acknowledge that Custer had less troops at Bighorn, but faced approximately 1500 lodges there vs. the 51 he faced at Washita. One would think if you were worried about facts, you would address that. A subordinate named Marcus Reno was supposed to attack the village from one end while Custer attacked from the other end. Reno's attack was supposed to get the attention of the Sioux, which he did. His unit then retreated to bluffs overlooking the river. The author repeatedly focuses on this fact, that Reno was supposed to charge the village, but since he stopped short and then retreated, he should have been shot or arrested by his own troops. Another soldier named Benteen was guarded the supply wagons. He received orders to "bring packs" (ammunition) to Custer, but found Reno's troops and supported them instead. Again, the author doesn't address what would have happened to a mule train in the middle of a combat zone. Custer's plan was perfect, just let down by his subordinates. To that, I paraphrase, the German general Helmuth von Moltke: "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy."
Over and over my frustrations were with how over the top the author supported Custer. No one can give a full explanation for why Little Bighorn happened. He does make some good points, such as the lack of criticism of Crook over his defeat at Rosebud. But his blindness towards ANY criticism of Custer defeats this book. Yes, Reno certainly made mistakes, but so did Custer.
On a side note, the poor editing also drove me crazy. The Treaty of Fort Laramie changes date multiple times and Custer apparently had a time machine because he participated in a campaign in 1974. Paragraph long summaries of the individual soldier would have been better than the usual page and a half he did as well. Finally, use a thesaurus! Benteen "dawdled" and Native Americans launched "incessant" attacks. Over and over... Unless you love Custer, avoid at all costs.
February 22, 2017
Awful, just awful in every way imaginable.
December 15, 2015
An interesting book, this is a defense of General Custer against all the criticism he has taken through the years. It does make some very good points, explaining the relationship between Custer and the generals who ended up blaming Custer for everything that happened at the Little Big Horn, showing the rivalry and also explaining other reasons for what happened. Hatch saves most of his criticism for General Reno, saying that if he had followed Custer's orders, things would have turned out much better and the massacre would never have happened.
While it is fairly convincing in some respects, the almost overwhelming hero worship Hatch has for Custer undermines his points a bit. The beginning of the book highlights Custer's Civil War career and personal life, and it's told in glowing terms that made me roll my eyes way too often.
For example:
"Why then did Custer race across Kansas? Only he knows for certain. But it would not be too far-fetched, not too much of a romantic notion, given the evidence and the characters of the man, to consider that Custer jeopardized his career simply because he desperately desired to see the woman he loved. The courtship and marriage of Armstrong and Libbie was one of the great romances of all time, one that transcends poetic thought and could cause a man to make rash decisions."
Oh, please.
Anyway, it's a worthy read and you may come out of it convinced that Custer was given a bad rap and was not around to defend himself.
Or you may just get a lot of eye exercise as they roll often at Hatch's prose.
While it is fairly convincing in some respects, the almost overwhelming hero worship Hatch has for Custer undermines his points a bit. The beginning of the book highlights Custer's Civil War career and personal life, and it's told in glowing terms that made me roll my eyes way too often.
For example:
"Why then did Custer race across Kansas? Only he knows for certain. But it would not be too far-fetched, not too much of a romantic notion, given the evidence and the characters of the man, to consider that Custer jeopardized his career simply because he desperately desired to see the woman he loved. The courtship and marriage of Armstrong and Libbie was one of the great romances of all time, one that transcends poetic thought and could cause a man to make rash decisions."
Oh, please.
Anyway, it's a worthy read and you may come out of it convinced that Custer was given a bad rap and was not around to defend himself.
Or you may just get a lot of eye exercise as they roll often at Hatch's prose.
December 2, 2015
This book follows the career of George Armstrong Custer after the Civil War and his part on the Indian frontier. It is a good overview of his career but says little of his time spent in Texas before moving north to fight the Plains Indians. It gives good descriptions of his Yellowstone and Black Hills expeditions. The best part of the book is the last three chapters where he discusses the aftermath of the battle at Little Bighorn. He believes the tragedy that befell Custer was the fault of Major Reno for not following orders and charging the Indian encampment from the south. He feels that Custer's strategy was sound and may well have been successful if Reno had not stopped the ordered charge into the village from the south end of the valley. He also faults Benteen for not hurrying to join the battle with the pack train containing much needed ammunition. I felt the author showed little respect for the Native American actions and their culture. Interesting Bol for those who enjoy the events and controversy about Custer and his last battle.
April 7, 2015
This book is a brilliant analysis of the Little Bighorn campaign, with a perfectly good defense of Custer's actions and decisions. It is only marred by the author's annoying tendency to rant on side topics. I actually agree with him on several of these, and it was STILL annoying.
That said, he makes a solid point in suggesting that Major Reno's apparent cowardice is what first caused things to fall apart, combined with Captain Benteen's slow response to the 'hurry up with the ammunition' order.
While we don't have a definite version of Custer's plan, the one that the author presents looks like a believable Custer plan, and one that in the historical context might have worked.
If anything, the author let General Crook off perhaps too easily, since his actions also contributed to the disaster.
Better editing would have been good. That might have toned down the rants, and fixed one or two confusing pieces of text.
That said, he makes a solid point in suggesting that Major Reno's apparent cowardice is what first caused things to fall apart, combined with Captain Benteen's slow response to the 'hurry up with the ammunition' order.
While we don't have a definite version of Custer's plan, the one that the author presents looks like a believable Custer plan, and one that in the historical context might have worked.
If anything, the author let General Crook off perhaps too easily, since his actions also contributed to the disaster.
Better editing would have been good. That might have toned down the rants, and fixed one or two confusing pieces of text.
July 13, 2016
This book on George Armstrong Custer is an attempt to whitewash the legends surrounding him. The author discounts most historians when they don't agree with his beliefs. The title infers that the work will be about about the Battle of the Little Bighorn but is a glorification of Custer's life ignoring his character by blaming others for Custer's action. The Last Days does present an alternative view and is therefore worth reading by the true history buff. Looking at the bibliography and chapter notes, most of this work is based on secondary sources.
September 6, 2016
Way to many errors to take seriously. There were several times where the author referred to President Grant when discussing an event that took place during the Johnson administration. The dates were all jumbled throughout the book and it never flowed. This was the first book that I have read on Custer, so I'm not sure what to do with the author's conclusions but the sloppy editing make it hard to take the book seriously.
May 25, 2015
Rehash. A different slant but same ending.
June 5, 2015
Should be titled "Excuses for Custer".
Reno's fault, Grant's fault, Benteen's fault, Black Kettle's fault ...
Libbie would be all aglow over this PR piece on her Golden Boy.
Reno's fault, Grant's fault, Benteen's fault, Black Kettle's fault ...
Libbie would be all aglow over this PR piece on her Golden Boy.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews