Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #236211 in Books
• Published on: 1997-06
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 352 pages

From Independent Publisher
Lakota Noon is an exhaustively researched and provocative reassessment of Custer's Last Stand. Gregory Michno argues that the voluminous literature about this epic battle has not adequately explained what happened. He attributes this to the fact that there were no white survivors and to contradictions in the Indian accounts. The author acknowledges the problems with Indian recollections but believes "they are still of much greater value than secondary speculation." Michno uses the stories of the Indian participants to reconstruct the battle in ten-minute intervals. After each segment, the author perceptively scrutinizes the unfolding battle and identifies inconsistencies in the Indian accounts. Although Michno's time-line analysis is an innovative way of examining the confrontation, the repetition inherent in this approach may diminish the book's appeal to general readers. Michno disagrees with much of the conventional wisdom about Custer's Last Stand. He believes the number of Indian fighters has been exaggerated and that Custer was not defeated by overwhelming numbers. The author estimates the size of the Indian force at one-thousand. Michno maintains that Custer was a skilled military commander and "not at all the inept egomaniac that some have depicted." Michno superbly depicts the rich culture of the Indians but his empathy for them does not affect his critical judgment. The author's intellectual curiosity and integrity enrich this book. Michno's intriguing interpretation of events at the Little Big Horn will stimulate debate among historians and battle buffs.

Customer Reviews

What the Indians reported
I read this after reading "A Terrible Glory" and was amazed that so much Native American testimony of the battle is available, even if it is fragmentary, contradictory, and often given decades after the events they describe. Some of the Native veterans of this battle were still alive in the 1940s and 50s and still offering views of what happened. Of the thousands of people in that village that was attacked by Custer, it seems a shame that only 40 or so seem to have ever had their memories recorded by historians or military or civilian interviewers. Why were so many of the others neglected? This is a compelling account of the battle and, along with the archaeological record and Army records up to the time that Reno's unit split from Custer's, is basically all that is available. Unless something else turns up.

The important 10 minutes in time
Michno's work is excellent, with the exception of his failure to include the reports of the Crow scouts. The main question that plagued me (and historians) is: Did Custer or any main body approach or cross the LBH? Michno partly answers the question: By focusing on the stories of the four to eight defenders at the river, Michno proves an Army force went to the river and was repulsed. He also provides strong analysis that it was not Custer, nor were there two deaths at the river. The best book on the incident by far.

Good Effort, Contoversial, but Contradictory
Author Greg Michno put a valiant effort into reconciling the multitude of Native American testimonies that surround the Little Big Horn battle. I personally wish he would have quoted their exact testimony, THEN provided his interpretation of their statements. It would have saved me time in looking up their actual statements in my collection. Obviously, there is much dispute over what a particular warrior was trying to say and in most cases, Mr. Michno's views are as valid and thoughtful as most. I did find some of his "Discussions" contradictory however. For example, when discussing the "Henryville" archeological finds, Mr. Michno states that these shots could not have been fired at the soldiers on Calhoun Hill. In support, he states that the Native Americans did not shoot it out with the soldiers at close range, preferring instead to snipe from long range. Thus, this position "had to be" occupied later in the battle. He also states in that discussion that the warriors did not close for hand-to-hand combat. This is contradicted by his interpretations that 1)they did charge in this battle,overrunning the soldier positions 2) that in the earlier stages of the battle they primarily used bows and arrows (very short range weapons, especially when firing uphill), 3) in order to reach positions to charge they had to close to very short range, & 4) that tests proved that the effective range of the Henry and Winchester rifles was only about 100 yds, with hits dropping off dramatically at greater ranges.

Overall, however, his book provides food for thought and helps fill a niche that has been too often overlooked.