Isaac Coates was Asst. Surgeon attached to the 7th Cavalry during the beginning of hostilities with the Plains Indians. Coates' recently discovered diary notes form the basis of this book. Two major problems with the volume are obvious. First, the diary covers only a short period of time (and that only partially) and thus Kennedy, the modern writing collaborator, must fill in large gaps. This is not wholly successful, as the narrative changes tone drastically and even jumps back and forth in time. Second, Coates is not an impartial observer, being a pal of Custer at times and an ashamed accomplice in genocide of the Indians at others. The horror of the conflict is manifest nonetheless, and is the strongest reason to read this book. Did the Civil War so morally anesthetize these Generals (Custer, Hancock, and Sheridan in particular) that they felt nothing wrong as they butchered Indian women and children and callously treated their troops? This sure isn't the 7th Cav that I saw on movie screens as a kid.

I purchased this book because my greatgrandfather was a colleague of Coates, serving in the Medical Department at various frontier posts at the same time. I hoped to see some insight into the duties of an Army surgeon on the Plains, but I was very disappointed that there were almost no references to his medical work.

Harry Combs book, "At the Battle of the Little Big Horn Where Was Custer?" is truly an interesting book; that is if you also like JFK conspiracy books. I am not sure where the author got his research from, but this book is jam packed (in it's 120 pages) with inaccurate statements. I've been reading and researching the Battle of the Little Big Horn for a few years now and have never come across this story of how the famed Scout, Mitch Boyer, lead Custer into an ambush. If the author wanted to purport this theory then it was OK by me; except when he tries to rewrite history to make his theory work. One can forgive an author when he makes several mistakes of history like writing "Fourteenth Cavalry" (no such unit) or that Gall was an Ogalala instead of a Hunkpapa. But, you do get terribly turned off to the book when the author make the mistakes like CPT Weir was on Reno Hill prior to the arrival of Benteen or that Custer made a tactical error by sending Giovanni Martini with the note to Benteen; thus depriving himself of a trumpeter. A very casual amateur historian knows that Weir was part of Benteen's Battalion and that Martini was only orderly of the day (actually assigned to Company H (Benteen) and that Custer's trumpeter was Chief Trumpeter Henry Voss. Additionaly, the author does a disservice to the Crow Scouts who fought with Reno in the Valley Fight and, for a few, died trying to save the formation by implying that they purposely lead Custer to his death. After that, this book was down hill for me. I wouldn't give this book a passing mark. I have given this book a one star rating because that is the lowest I was allowed to give. My advice is invest your money in a well documented work from authors like Utley, Gray, or Graham.

A great detailed account of the epic battle from the men who fought in it. Rich with information with the flow of a story book - great balance and a great piece of literature.

The author brings a little too much 1990s sensitivity to the 1870s, creating a world which just didn't exist. In the author's view, the indians were good, pure, clean, and represented just about every good quality; while the settlers and cavalry were less-than-bright exploiters of the wilderness and ravagers of the environment and the local populace. This kind of revisionism gets tiresome, and luckily my 10 and 12 year old kids recognized this as well as I did. The author's reliance on politically-correct ideology creates unbelieveable characters and situations. If the author had himself been a settler in Kansas during that time period, I believe we would have had a different point of view in this story.

A Beautifully Written Story about a Young Boy and His Horse who face and Overcome many Challenges. NOT meant to be a True to life Historical Novel. My Son and I loved it! Nice to read a Warm Inspiring Story about a Different Time and Place.

Who would have thought? A story recounting George Armstrong Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn is about as exciting as a worn 7th-grade text book. Initially, the idea seemed appealing. A novelization of this infamous battle in the vein and tradition of Michael Shaara's brilliant "The Killer Angels." But there's just one problem - author Edwin Hoyt's interpretation of these historical characters (Custer, Sitting Bull, Elizabeth Custer, Frederick Benteen, Marcus Reno, etc..) displays the life spark of a department store mannequin. No hyperbole here, but that's not a plus. This novel plods along to the inevitable climax on those slopes of Montana and we never get to know these characters. Their motivations, their weaknesses, their thoughts - it's a mystery in "The Last Stand." Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. No book about this subject matter will ever match the power of the Evan S. Connell's classic "Son of the Morning Star." So why do I keep buying this drivel? Why do I continue to torture myself by reading book after book on this battle? Because it's a supremely entertaining story. "The Last Stand" does not do this historical story justice. In fact, I'm not sure if I have ever read a book as agonizingly monotonous as this one in reference to this event. Hoyt chooses to recount Custer's undocumented affairs with women in New York - including a graphic sexual encounter which takes up two pages - rather than detail the the Rosebud battle between General Crook and Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse, by the way, is only mentioned two or three times in this entire book. I guess Hoyt would rather dote on a laughable myth, which is suspect at best, about Custer's supposed Indian child. Oh Yellow Hair! A tragic child caught between two worlds! And finally the battle itself. It takes up about two pages of this sterile account and suddenly - our tale has been told. If you hold out for a thrilling conclusion, a moment of supreme realization - "Yes, that's how it happend!" - you're not going to find it in "The Last Stand." From a technical standpoint, Hoyt's interpretation of the final battle (and there have been many) is essentially accurate. If he just could have added some color, a dash of detail, the residue of drama, the caterwaul of desperation. I suppose if your only exposure to Custer and the Little Big Horn battle comes from a black and white Saturday afternoon matinee starring Errol Flynn and Anthony Quinn, this book may interest you. But for any reader even remotely knowledgable on this subject matter, "The Last Stand" rings with the scrawny chord of a rusty bugle.

Book is really mediocre. I only finished it to see how Custer died this time. Go read Little Big Man instead if your looking for a Custer novelization. Heck see the movie too.

I picked this book up recently because I like the Indian Wars and saw "Savas" on the spine. I have every one of their books, and all of them are of high quality and wonderful. I also have the Titanic and Alamo books in this series, which are both great. Man, is this one a lot different than all the others. The organization is just awful. The "facts" are set out one after another: "Fact #766," and then "Fact #767" and so on. What a nutty idea. It makes the entire book mechanical and pedantic.

The writing is also ploddy and unexciting. Really, REALLY dry. Many entires read as if they were just keyed in--and are lifted almost verbatim from other books. Without an index, no footnotes, and about 75% of the entries worthless tidbits of information, why was this book published? I guess every good publishing company lays an egg now and again.

This book is a disappointment in that it has three very serious flaws: 1. Aprroximately 200 of the 1876 facts in this book are nothing more than a listing of the birthplaces of members of the 7th Cavalry, or aliases they enlisted under. Now who cares! 2. Not more than one in thirty of the 1876 facts are referenced! If you want to check out a specific fact in this book by checking the source, you will have no idea what reference in the bibliography Mr. Russell got the fact from! 3. It has no index, which is always a huge handicap for any non-fiction book. This leaves the question "What audience is this book intended for?" It has too many details for LBH beginners, and cannot serve as a reference for the serious LBH student.

Some of the 'facts' mentioned tend to dispute one another and seems that the author just wandered from book to book without looking up any real information. Considering that the last ten years yielded a wealth of information that the author ignored especially about the type of weapons carried by the seventh cavalry. Shame on you Mr. Russell for this sham.

To me, Libbie Custer is the attractive young woman beside George Armstrong Custer in all those old pictures. Beyond that, she has little historical significance. She spent much of her long life conducting a personal public relations campaign to save her husband's reputation, and refute criticisms of his actions at the Little Big Horn. She also needed to support herself. Part of this effort were three books of their life together on the plains. As a dutiful wife, Libbie Custer is fine. As an historian, she leaves something to be desired. Inevitably, her biased memoir does not qualify as either good history or as effective biography. Surprisingly, George Custer stays mostly on the sidelines. When he is mentioned, she ascribes only exemplary traits to him. The information she conveys of the struggle of army wives to make a home livable under primitive conditions is worthwhile. There is also tales of buffalo hunts and other recreations. People such as California Joe and Wild Bill Hickok make brief appearances in her narrative. In her politely restrained Victorian manner, Libbie laments the fate of white women suffering Indian captivity. This book, published in 1890, reflects its age in its portrayal of minorities. Native Americans are described sympathetically when they are prisoners living in the army corral. Otherwise, they are disparaged as wily and vicious savages. Considering her husband's death at the hands of the Sioux and Cheyenne, some personal prejudice can be forgiven. The descriptions of her black servant, Eliza, is blatantly stereotypical. Ultimately, Mrs. Custer's book is more a curiosity and a footnote than a meaningful history. History buffs that will read anything about the Custer saga may find it valuable. Others beware. ;-)

Yellow Bird struck me as nothing more than an excuse to write some very gratuitous sex. It had no more to do with Custer or Indians than my cats. Poor read. I can't recommend it except to those who collect Custer ephemera. linda terrell

This is the absolute worst book I've ever read. Not just the worst Civil War book, the worst book, period. The author devotes 11 measley pages to the actual engagement referred to in the title. The editing is so sloppy, every few pages are typos. The maps offered in the book are useless. No orientations to North, no scales, lacking in all detail. The most upsetting thing is the lack of documentation. It was almost as if this guy saw the movie and used that as the outline of his book. He offered very little in the way of proof to any of his assertations. The worst thing is, this guy was an officer in the Army. As an officer myself, I'm extremely disappointed in my peer. Do not waste your time with this book.

After finishing this book, I wasn't sure if I'd read one that was intended to be fact, or a novel. Despite its title, only one small chapter is devoted to the cavalry fight on Gettysburg's East Cavalry Field. The balance of the book, mostly devoted to the Gettysburg Campaign itself, is full of so many errors it's laughable. John Buford's fight the morning of July 1, the first day, is completely screwed up. It appears as though the author has never been within 1000 miles of Gettysburg. Throughout the book, the author presents easily DISPROVEN myths about Gettysburg as though they were facts. Anyone reading this book is going to get a completely incorrect idea of not only Gettysburg but much of America's Civil War in general. I collect books on the Civil War (with some 2000), the cavalry specifically, and I have just thrown this book in the trash. I will NOT permit this "work" to have a place on my shelves, and I completely regret purchasing it. The sources are scanty, and the author relied mostly on secondary resources. If the author had simply done the minimum required research in primary resources, and just cracked open the Official Records just once, he would have had to completely re-write his manuscript. DO NOT waste your money. Go to McDonald's and have a Happy Meal. It would be money much better spent. Hopefully this book will go out of print and disappear VERY soon.

This book advertises itself as being a study of the cavalry battle on East Cavalry Field at Gettysburg on July 3, 1863. It's not, which is a shame.

The book is approximately 120 pages long. Of those 120 pages, only 12 deal the fight on East Cavalry Field. The rest of the book deals with a bunch of miscellaneous stuff that really has nothing to do with the themes suggested by the title. The little bit of information on the fight at East Cavalry Field sheds no light on the complicated battle that raged there. There's virtually no discussion of the extended and brutal dismounted fight that preceeded the two mounted charges and which necessitated them. There are only a couple of not particularly useful maps, and very little in the way of illustrations.

The title is also misleading in many ways. First, and foremost, George Custer played only a small and somewhat insignificant role in the battle. Brig. Gen. David M. Gregg commanded the Union forces there, and he's the one who made the critical decisions that impacted the outcome of the battle. Second, Gregg gave the orders for the 7th Michigan Cavalry, and later, the 1st Michigan Cavalry, to charge, usurping Custer's authority. In fact, Custer just went along for the ride, albeit a ride into glory. He had nothing to do with the decisions to charge.

Further, not even the most stalwart of cavalry buffs would be so arrogant to suggest that a sideshow to the Battle of Gettysburg somehow saved the Union. Perhaps the main fight at Gettysburg did, but this sideline action most assuredly did not. The repulse of the Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble charge was much, much more significant to saving the Union than the Gregg-Stuart fight on East Cavalry Field.

Finally, and most troubling is the fact that this book's bibliography is only a page and a half long. It's clear that the author relied almost exclusively on secondary sources, as only three or four primary sources are cited in the bibliography. Stunningly, not one of those primary sources is the Offical Records of the Civil War, which must be starting point for anyone trying to analyze and understand a Civil War campaign or battle. There's no substance here to speak of, and certainly nothing to make it worth buying.

Do yourselves a favor...don't waste your money on buying this book. It's not worth it.