We found the book to be very fun! It was easy to do, easy to follow, and really helped our theater group. We found that the actors wanted to come back and be involved. That was the key...they WANTED to come back. These games are great!!!!! Go for it!

Wow, all I can is wow. This is a very interesting read. What a great way to see how life was out on the plains and during the war. Also, it's very trippy to read all about what Custer thought of "Indians" and the views that he held for them.

What really got me was the reality of this book. Getting an intimate look at the life of not only Custer's, but the soldiers and scouts that he commanded and worked with.

Very good and easy read. Custer does like to go off and get very wordy and talkative about subject matter that must have been important back in the 1870's. Still, it does not detract from the book, but only makes it that much more interesting.

Pick this one up.

Having read several eyewitness accounts to the Battle of the Little Bighorn by Indian participants, several of which included paintings and drawings done by the warriors, I am rather ambivalent about "Red Hawk's Account of Custer's Last Battle." This 1969 book by Paul and Dorothy Goble is told through the eyes of a Red Hawk, a fifteen-year-old Ogala youth. However, although based on Indian accounts of the battle, the character of Red Hawk is a fictional creation. Similarly, the art work is inspired by the Plains Indians paintings of the 1860-1900 period. But, to be fair, in 1969 the legend of Custer was still going strong and the Indian accounts of the battle were not exactly seeing the light of day. Consequently, this book is of interest because it harkens back to a time when the revisionists were rethinking the entire Custer myth and cars were starting to sport the bumper sticker "Custer Died For Your Sins."

We learn on the backflap that the Gobles had visited the U.S. from London in 1959 where they were adopted into the Sioux and Yakima tribes and given the Indian names "Wakinyan Chikala" (Little Thunder) and "Minne Wiyakpawin" (Shining Water). The Gobles visited the battlefield with Crow friends and used their "long acquaintance with Indians ways and people" to try "to bring Custer into perspective a little by keeping to the facts." So, certainly the fact that this book is over thirty years old does explain why in refers to the old name of the Custer Battlefield National Monument and the term Sioux (which, I understand, means "cutthroat" and was given to the Lakota by other Plains tribes). In the end, I conclude that the intentions of the Gobles are honorable. The narrative of "Red Hawk" is broken up periodically by additional historical notes, which usually establish what Custer and the 7th Cavalry were doing at various points in the story. Ultimately, it is their attempt to set the record straight that redeems the effort, and after reading this book you can certainly turn to the authentic Indian accounts and art of the battle.

It is a good chance not to miss this book for the engineers in the fire protection field.

Let me begin by saying I wrote the book-so I am a little biased. This started as my Master's thesis in history and I found it impossible to stop writing. It was very difficult and took a great deal of time-some ten years. I met a great many wonderful people and had a great time. I tried to tell a story of a man with many faults, but whose love of family overcame his weaknesses. It is a tale of courage, love, and sadness. Sadness for a great many people whose lives were destroyed by war. Is it the greatest book of all time, no, of course not. But I am proud of it and hope that it brings enjoyment to all who read it.

David H. Miller's claim to have interviewed oodles of Indian survivors of the Custer fight is bogus. Most of the factual Indian material in the book is freely lifted from interviews recorded by other people such as Stanley Vestal. Even the Indian "portraits" which Miller supposedly did from life appear to have been done from photographs. It is significant that Miller waited until the last Indian survivor had died in 1955 before publishing. Like his spiritual descendent, Dee Brown, Miller writes nonsense while leaning on the works of more reputable authors...

His "original" material is sheer nonsense, like his contention that Custer committed suicide and that the powder burns were somehow "wiped away" by cover-up officers -- and that Custer's body was taken away on the Far West rather than buried on the field. (Oddly enough, he also claims that Custer got shot crossing the river...)

I have not yet read the book but am now ordering it. I noticed that a couple of the reviews from readers questioned the validity of the book. It is absolutely authenic. I was the Millers banker in 1981 when they lived in Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. and I visited their home on 2 occasins. Mr. Miller has a fascinating background which does include living with the indians and seeking out those who had fought Custer approximately 50 years prior to his painting their busts.His home was full of Indian artifacts which he refused to sell because they had been given to him and had special meaning. Mr. Miller was also employed on the sets of several cowboy movies as an Indian expert. He was about 75 years old in 1981 and I have lost total contact with him. I just want readers of this book to know that it is the real thing.

Having read several differing accounts of the battle at Little Big Horn, I find that no one, not even the Indians know what happened that day. Mr. Miller has done his best to present the views of the Indians who fought at the battle as factually as possible. I have not read a recent printing, (my book was printed in 1965, 208 pages counting lists of Indians interviewed or mentioned and the Officers of the 7th Cavalry). I have not been able to find anything in this book, or in any other books to make me believe that Mr. Miller has done anything other than present the facts as best as he could, and I highly recomend this book for anyone interested in the truth about what happened June 25, 1876.

sorry for the title there, but I generally have to agree with the chula vista reader and Hurley; this is just basically a story baselined from the rehash of Reno testimony, and as such, at least in terms of the actions of Reno et al., really sheds no new light, and tends to continue the Custer vs. Reno/Benteen polarization... which is fine, if that is really the tack that the author wishes to adhere to.
What I did find interesting, especially in terms of some of the Reno/Benteen apologists, is the very subtle absolution given Reno: his rout/retreat was not carried out properly due to the failure of the troop commanders. Isn't that the other side of the coin that so many argue over regarding Reno and Benteen's support (sic) of Custer; it's okay to excuse Reno for his subordinates alleged lack of performance, but not Custer?

I mean no disrespect to the relatives of Reno, but the wealth of data available in the historical record probably is even too lenient in "judging" the actions of Reno and Benteen on that day. This is NOT to say that any different outcome would have necessarily occurred; the United Tribes were truly better-positioned, better-armed, and effective that afternoon. The appearance of collusion by Reno and Benteen to not effect even a demonstration of lawfully-ordered military support to Custer cannot be dismissed, rationalized, nor wished away. It certainly was obvious to Captain Weir what Reno and Benteen were up to.

A critical, penetrating biography of Marcus Reno would be a welcome addition to Little Bighorn (LBH) devotees. You will not find it here. The chapters concerning Reno's actions during the Little Bighorn battle (two chapters out of a total of 17) most certainly break NO new ground. Mr. Nichols sources for Reno's actions come virtually entirely from the testimony given at the Reno court of inquiry. As LBH fans know, the reliability of much of the testimony from the Reno court of inquiry is open to question. Many feel much was withheld, actions shaded, and even perjury committed. To base the single most important event in Reno's life essentially on this one source is not good biography writing. There is such a wealth of research devoted to this battle, it perplexes me why Mr. Nichols did not make any use of it. I disagree with a previous reviewer of this book, as nothing is "proved" here. Simply regurgitating old testimony from that court of inquiry is not proof. Ronald Nichols is, as you may know, the editor of the complete version of the preceedings of the Reno Court of Inquiry.

The only reason this book is of interest is the account of Reno's years prior to LBH, especially his troublesome years at West Point. Reno's life after LBH was decidedly dull. This "besotted mediocrity", as Robert Utley called him, spent many fruitless years trying to get re-instated into the Army after his dismissal, while working as a clerk in the Pensions Bureau. Not very interesting reading.

I have read reviews of this book and have found it to be
split on opinions of Reno. I feel it should be the definitive
work on Reno. For better or worse this book is the best on Reno,
considering the limited amount of literature available on Reno.
I admire Ronald Nichols for devoting twenty years for researching
this book.
Being an avid amateur Custer historian this book will add
another view of Little Bighorn and the author's insight into the
battle. I especially like the attention given to letters written
in defense of Custer and blaming Reno by former Confederate General Thomas L. Rosser. Rosser, a classmate and friend of
Custer's at West Point was a true friend of Custer even after the
Civil War.
One cannot help to feel for Reno and his quest for reinstatement to the Army. When he was finally reinstated many
years later it had to be a relief for his descendants. Reno was
truly one of the more unfortuanate characters in American Military History along with Confederate General John Bell Hood.
A very good book indeed and my congratulations to Mr. Nichols
for writing it.

Reading accounts of the Battle of the Little Bighorn sometimes leaves a mass of confusion to the reader. Even visitation to the site does not always enable oneself to clearly picture the events of that day. This book, which does not attempt to explain why things happened does much to set the scene and completes the picture that is painted by the numerous accounts of what happened. The reader may find this book to be dry, perhaps repetitious in some place, but in the end, will appreciate the information that is provided. Be aware that reading this book will forever cause the reader to imediately reject any printed material on The Battle of the Bighorn, that is not properly (and correctly) researched. This book is a good reference for any library.

This is an excellent book because it cuts through the partisan pro Custer, anti Custer views that are the main theme in almost all the books about the battle written to date. I highly recommend all the books written by Fox on this subject because he has no pre conceived ideas or biases. He bases his interpretations on the physical evidence remaining at the site and draws his conclusions from that evidence.

I don't understand where most of these previous reviewers are coming from. This is not meant to be a "theory-book" on the battle of the Little Bighorn. All it is is as an "assessment of the 1984 field season" of archaeological work on the battlefield. As that it functions well, with complete descriptions of the recovered artifacts and many sketches and pictures. There are only about 15 pages about the way the battle itself went, and it just correlates the artifacts in a preliminary way to how the battle may have progressed. It's nothing to get upset over. As for the Kansas City reviewer, he must be on another planet. Kuhlman's work was not "ripped without mercy" in this book. As a matter of fact, I don't think Kuhlman was even mentioned at all.

Until the author mentions that he is a native american I thought he was just ignorantly biased. He laments the tourism of the Black Hills and Mt. Rushmore while complaing and totally ignores the Crazy Horse Memorial which will dwarf Rushmore when completed. He concludes that it was just fine for Means to block access to important segments of "Custer Battlefield National Monument" while ignoring the rights of other Americans to visit the battlefield. (My family came all the way from Texas and were unable to see the Reno site because of the illegal blockade which had nothing to do with the Sun Dance.) Who wants to hear the usual park service inaccurate litanies when the real 'mccoy' is outside the door. There should be a rating lower than 1 star for tripe such as this book. Of the more than 97 books I have on the Custer Battlefield and Indian wars, this one is the second worst. The author omits anything that would detract from his agenda and ignores countless resources that would prove his hypothesis wrong at many key points. He doesn't even believe the winter count records apparently. I was most disappointed in this book. The title should be " My views or A Midsummer Nights Dream". I wonder how much of his royalties the author has donated to the Northern Cheyenne or to the various Sioux councils.

Killing Custer starts out lame and limps along like a horse with three shoes! The Author has a good opportunity to present a Native American viewpoint on a great battle (Native American vs the White Anglo) but choose to wander and bounces from personal grudges to mythical happening to political agendas! As this book progress, the reader is left with the feeling that the material being presented is inadequate to make a complete book and that the author adds side-bars to flesh out the copy. Little new information is added to the existing knowledge and most of the material presented is tainted with the political subtones of the author. To bad... as this book could have been a good one for the library!

It's a good day to die; the book was issued in France under this title.Looking for other books on this american site,I was surprised and shocked to read some of the reviews.I think this book is important . Of course, I guess that many books have been written about this subject, and I don't know if this one gives us more informations than the others.But what is important to me is the fact that this book has been written by an indian,a man who has more than anyone else, the right to speak about what happened to his people. The 20's century great democracies, including France,can't be proud of their foundations.America with indian and black peoples,France in the West Indies ,and North Africa.One thing surprises me in the reviews of this book:a reviewer only writes about the Little Big Horn battle,although the book goes from 1869 to Sitting Bull's death in 1890.He is sad not to have been able to see the Reno site while visiting the country; personnaly,I would have prefered (and hope I'll have the opportunity) to spend a few hours on the place,near the river,where the Sioux and Cheyennes were living with their families.Another reviewer complains about "the political subtones of the author".And so what? Senator McCarthy fortunately died,no? And I think Mr Welch ,like any other human being, can and has to have a political conciousness.YOu can agree with him or not,but you can't reproach him with telling what he thinks .I was glad to read this book,and I recommend it to you.

Mr. Skimin's book is not for people who have in-depth knowledge of the Little Big Horn; but I don't think it's for people who don't know much about it, either.

There is too much low-skill novelizing. Too many real people brought in just to make a book, mixed in with invented folk who read like cliches. The true and known stories from 1876 are strong enough without inventing sex in the tipi (Indian side), the jocular inventions in the Bismark brothel (soldier side), and the invented conversations between the Custers (tho fortunately Skimin does draw the veil with Autie and Libbie). And why use a real person's name and make him a racist/sadist if you're going to invent a Jewish victim? Why not invent the sadist too? That didn't seem fair to the real sergeant. Mr. Skimin willingly invented half a dozen Indians and gave them leading roles. Why not the sadist?

Aside from mixing up Miles and Myles, at the end of the book the man we've come to know and admire as Frederick Benteen suddenly becomes Thomas Benteen. Fred's brother was there? Clearly there was no editor on this project, but Mr. Skimin must have been napping when he read the galleys.

Mr. Skimin did a very good job of building a narrative around Custer's last winter. This may be the first time I can tell you where he was from December to May 1876, and I've read everyone from van de Water to Utley.

But I didn't appreciate the fictionalized last stand, with Keogh or Keough being run through by our Indian hero, nor the detailed inventions of how many times Tom Custer was shot or that Cooke was shot twice and also hit with an arrow. The book just isn't written well enough to make that stuff work. For someone who did that fine, try Hoffman Birney's "The Dice of God."

You can tell this book by it's cover. The photo of Custer is from the Civil War. He was photographed many times on the frontier. Why not use a photo more appropriate to the book? I don't know.

I was compelled to buy this book because of my long-standing interest in the conflicts between the whites and the Indians. This fictional novel, based on historical events, was found to be extremely light. Robert Skimin fleshed out characters, at times, in odd ways. I especially disliked the way real people were saddled with sexual, sadistic, and/or prejudicial characteristics. At times characters seemed to be introduced in a helter skelter manner just to add to the list of real people that he included in the novel. In places, I felt, he mixed combinations of traits just to add a new twist. For example, he had a former Jewish Russian solder, who was a black belt in Judo, defend himself against a sadistic, bigoted and not too bright sargent. Robert Skimin did stay with the historical facts surrounding General Custer and the events that led up to his defeat at the Little Bighorn but as a whole any grade school history student could have easily gotten the same information about the Sioux, Cheyenne, and the 7th Calvary.

Also recommended: Custer's Luck, Crazy Horse: The Strange Man of the Oglalas, Killing Custer, Black Elk Speaks, The Road to the Little Big Horn-and Beyond,

This book is a blend of fiction and history, but works better as history than as fiction. The dialogue is stilted. An example: Custer says to his wife Libbie, "You are uncommonly wanton, Madame." Libbie responds, "I like that term, you handsome devil, but you didn't answer me." (p 5) In addition, the characters are little more than caricatures, so the reader does not really get involved with them.

As history, the book demonstrates that Custer's decisions were arguably defensible based on the information he had--in one sense, "Custer's luck" had simply run out and the fates worked against him. All things considerred, though, Custer was responsible for the disaster because he was an egomaniac who, thinking he was invincible, recklessly entered into a battle he could not win. Although the book does a decent job of presenting the catastrophe from various perspectives, the book shows signs of carelessness. A minor but telling example is that the spelling constantly alternates between "Miles" and "Myles" Keough.

The River and the Horsemen will appeal to people interested in Custer's last stand, but will not hold the interest of the general reader.