Post by crzhrs on Jan 19, 2006 9:31:35 GMT -6
Following are some reviews for this book:
To Hell With Honor: Custer and the Little Big Horn by Larry Sklenar is overbearingly pro Custer. The hypothetical leaps that he takes in the book are somewhat interesting, especially regarding the motives of some of the primary and company commanders.
I should have closed the book after reading the second paragraph of the preface, though. In it Sklenar compares Custer's fallen to that of WWII bomber crews. He ties it together with Sitting Bull's vision of soldiers falling into the village . . huh?
Another stretch is Sklenar's thesis, based on Custer's character, that he knowingly sacrificed his command for the sake of Reno, Benteen, and McDougall. Sklenar proposes that Custer made this decision immediately after Bouyer informed him of Reno's repulse. Custer was a warrior, he was going to fight no matter what the odds.(Look at his Civil War record.)
Custer can do no wrong in this book, he is blameless! His two chief subbordinates apparently loathe him. This, according to Sklenar, is due to their own character flaws, and no blame for the rift in the regiment is to be placed on Custer. Meanwhile, the characters of Benteen and Reno are continually thrashed. Sklenar delves into the minds of these two men and grants them dishonorable motives in almost all of their actions during the battle. Granted, both men had their failings during the battle, but so did Custer.
Most GOOD history I read is unbiased, based on priamry sources, and well researched, not suppositions, conjecture, and mind reading.
When reading this book, one should have a firm idea of the progress of the battle, regiment organization, troop movements, terrain, etc.
Suggested Reading-
Read Graham, Gray, and Utley for overall info
Scott and Fox for archaeological perspectives (fascinating)
MORE:
This Book Deserves 0 Stars, November 1, 2004
reviews
I cannot understand why we need another book about Custer that does nothing but rehash the same old tired stuff. Sklenar presents nothing new in this book; no primary evidence is used here. The author even admits in the introduction of his book that he is presenting his ideas of what happened at the Little Bighorn based on other works. Heck, anyone that writes decently can do that.
Problems:
• Again, nothing new is presented here that is supported by primary evidence - zilch. Any "new" ideas that Sklenar presents in his narrative come strictly from his imagination. One laughable example: Sklenar considers the "Lone Tipi" a village!
• This book is nothing but a glorious review for Custer; it is almost angelic.
• If one were to look up every page listed in the index for Reno, one would find nothing but shameful adjectives describing Reno's character, leadership, or military background. The same exercise for Benteen reveals the same as for Reno except for one page. Only one page has something positive to say about Benteen. Now, if one follows through with this experiment for Custer: George, Tom, and Boston it becomes a love fest; there is nothing but praise lavished upon these men. The character studies are as far from reality as possible. Sklenar did everything but include a picture of George with a halo floating above his head.
Suggestions:
• Don't buy this book. There are many great books about Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. I recommend:
• Robert Utley - "Cavalier in Buckskin" and "Custer and the Great Controversy"
• Louise Barnett - "Touched by Fire" the best biography on Custer
• John Gray - "Custer's Last Campaign" an incredibly detailed book about this most famous battle. Gray's "Centennial Campaign" is still the best book about the Sioux War of 1876 - it has less than one page about the LBH, but it tells you all you need to know about the causes of the Sioux War and the many battles fought in it.
• And, the one book I recommend most often when working at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is Douglas Scott's "Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn" which presents all you need to know about the archeological digs at LBH during the summers of 1984 and 1985 and an incredible analysis of what the data reveals.
Flawed, September 8, 2004
One reviewer mentions that "Custer haters will not like this book." Well, I am not a Custer hater, I feel that he had legitimate military reason to launch an attack on June 25, 1876 and what he did followed generally accepted tactics of frontier warfare. Furthermore, popular "history" (we can not dignify that with the actual word history) has gone far beyond raising legitimate questions about him and has actually attacked his sanity, which is utterly ludicrous.
I do not like this book though since it deals as unfairly with many of Custer's subordinate officers (especially Lt. George D. Wallace) as some books have dealt with Custer himself. After studying this battle for many years and even writing a biography of Wallace (self-published and now out of print), I can only conclude that Robert Utley has, in general terms, explained the outcome better than most--the 7th Cavalry lost because the Sioux won. Yes, there were mistakes but even without those mistakes I can not help but feel that the results would have been the same, as the Lakota victory the week before on the Rosebud underscores the fact that they had both sufficient numbers and ability to handle any of the three army comnponents in the field (their numbers had actually increased by June 25). The columns of Terry, Gibbon, and Crook were all operating under the assumption that their most difficult task would be preventing the Indian villages from breaking/fleeing long enough to bring them to a decisive battle. Such flights were a normal occurence in light of Indians conducting warfare with no line of demarcation between combatants/non-combatants; in other words, warriors, women and children were normally always together in the same camp or on the march, unless the warriors were on the rare offensive, as at the Rosebud battle.
Beyond these flaws, the apparently undiscovered true objective of Reno's charge (a small satellite village on the east banks of the Little Big Horn) just doesn't stand up as being that militarily important. If it was, the fact of its significance would have been discovered, disclosed and analysed long before this year 2000 book.
To Hell With Honor: Custer and the Little Big Horn by Larry Sklenar is overbearingly pro Custer. The hypothetical leaps that he takes in the book are somewhat interesting, especially regarding the motives of some of the primary and company commanders.
I should have closed the book after reading the second paragraph of the preface, though. In it Sklenar compares Custer's fallen to that of WWII bomber crews. He ties it together with Sitting Bull's vision of soldiers falling into the village . . huh?
Another stretch is Sklenar's thesis, based on Custer's character, that he knowingly sacrificed his command for the sake of Reno, Benteen, and McDougall. Sklenar proposes that Custer made this decision immediately after Bouyer informed him of Reno's repulse. Custer was a warrior, he was going to fight no matter what the odds.(Look at his Civil War record.)
Custer can do no wrong in this book, he is blameless! His two chief subbordinates apparently loathe him. This, according to Sklenar, is due to their own character flaws, and no blame for the rift in the regiment is to be placed on Custer. Meanwhile, the characters of Benteen and Reno are continually thrashed. Sklenar delves into the minds of these two men and grants them dishonorable motives in almost all of their actions during the battle. Granted, both men had their failings during the battle, but so did Custer.
Most GOOD history I read is unbiased, based on priamry sources, and well researched, not suppositions, conjecture, and mind reading.
When reading this book, one should have a firm idea of the progress of the battle, regiment organization, troop movements, terrain, etc.
Suggested Reading-
Read Graham, Gray, and Utley for overall info
Scott and Fox for archaeological perspectives (fascinating)
MORE:
This Book Deserves 0 Stars, November 1, 2004
reviews
I cannot understand why we need another book about Custer that does nothing but rehash the same old tired stuff. Sklenar presents nothing new in this book; no primary evidence is used here. The author even admits in the introduction of his book that he is presenting his ideas of what happened at the Little Bighorn based on other works. Heck, anyone that writes decently can do that.
Problems:
• Again, nothing new is presented here that is supported by primary evidence - zilch. Any "new" ideas that Sklenar presents in his narrative come strictly from his imagination. One laughable example: Sklenar considers the "Lone Tipi" a village!
• This book is nothing but a glorious review for Custer; it is almost angelic.
• If one were to look up every page listed in the index for Reno, one would find nothing but shameful adjectives describing Reno's character, leadership, or military background. The same exercise for Benteen reveals the same as for Reno except for one page. Only one page has something positive to say about Benteen. Now, if one follows through with this experiment for Custer: George, Tom, and Boston it becomes a love fest; there is nothing but praise lavished upon these men. The character studies are as far from reality as possible. Sklenar did everything but include a picture of George with a halo floating above his head.
Suggestions:
• Don't buy this book. There are many great books about Custer and the Battle of the Little Bighorn. I recommend:
• Robert Utley - "Cavalier in Buckskin" and "Custer and the Great Controversy"
• Louise Barnett - "Touched by Fire" the best biography on Custer
• John Gray - "Custer's Last Campaign" an incredibly detailed book about this most famous battle. Gray's "Centennial Campaign" is still the best book about the Sioux War of 1876 - it has less than one page about the LBH, but it tells you all you need to know about the causes of the Sioux War and the many battles fought in it.
• And, the one book I recommend most often when working at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument is Douglas Scott's "Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn" which presents all you need to know about the archeological digs at LBH during the summers of 1984 and 1985 and an incredible analysis of what the data reveals.
Flawed, September 8, 2004
One reviewer mentions that "Custer haters will not like this book." Well, I am not a Custer hater, I feel that he had legitimate military reason to launch an attack on June 25, 1876 and what he did followed generally accepted tactics of frontier warfare. Furthermore, popular "history" (we can not dignify that with the actual word history) has gone far beyond raising legitimate questions about him and has actually attacked his sanity, which is utterly ludicrous.
I do not like this book though since it deals as unfairly with many of Custer's subordinate officers (especially Lt. George D. Wallace) as some books have dealt with Custer himself. After studying this battle for many years and even writing a biography of Wallace (self-published and now out of print), I can only conclude that Robert Utley has, in general terms, explained the outcome better than most--the 7th Cavalry lost because the Sioux won. Yes, there were mistakes but even without those mistakes I can not help but feel that the results would have been the same, as the Lakota victory the week before on the Rosebud underscores the fact that they had both sufficient numbers and ability to handle any of the three army comnponents in the field (their numbers had actually increased by June 25). The columns of Terry, Gibbon, and Crook were all operating under the assumption that their most difficult task would be preventing the Indian villages from breaking/fleeing long enough to bring them to a decisive battle. Such flights were a normal occurence in light of Indians conducting warfare with no line of demarcation between combatants/non-combatants; in other words, warriors, women and children were normally always together in the same camp or on the march, unless the warriors were on the rare offensive, as at the Rosebud battle.
Beyond these flaws, the apparently undiscovered true objective of Reno's charge (a small satellite village on the east banks of the Little Big Horn) just doesn't stand up as being that militarily important. If it was, the fact of its significance would have been discovered, disclosed and analysed long before this year 2000 book.