" The time spent in their fight and the results of their shooting are all the evidence we need to show that they defended their ground tenaciously. An interpretation claiming that few government cartridges were found on Custer Hill cannot change this."

Could it not be said in an equally accurate statement that:
All the interpretation in print cannot change the fact that few government cartridges were found on Custer hill?
Seems strange to ignore physical evidence from archaeological science on page 6 and then use the same archaeological evidence to support the contention that few or no bodies were found in the Deep Ravine.

By Will Atwood on Feb 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm

Mr. Michno,
I understand that you are a published author and expert in Custer's battle at the Little Bighorn. Therefore, I'm hoping you may provide an explanation regarding the conversational and confrontational style used in your article. It's rather surprising to read something so juvenile from a published author. Frankly, sir, I would be embarrassed by such an effort. Grammatically, you have made a few errors which should have been amended during routine editing.

Scholastically, your research is wonderful but incomplete. Your sources appear to be primarily native Americans; their reliability as eyewitnesses is tenuous, yet you fail to even mention this fact. Many of these testimonies were provided years after the battle, at a time when memories tend to obfuscate the realities.

Sorry for the criticism. Or, as you so eloquently wrote, "Deal with it." Seriously, did your teenage son write this for a class?

By Lew Frank, USMC (ret) on Feb 24, 2009 at 4:28 pm

I have to say that I was very interested when I first saw this article but have to agree with above posters. I was rather disappointed by the way it was written and the rhetoric used.

I have read many history books over the years and many articles on this site. I'm afraid this article is sub par to anything I have read so far.

My instincts asked me if it was april first.

By Joakim Casemyr on Feb 26, 2009 at 7:51 am

I, too, agree with the other posters. This article is trite at best, and I'm rather shocked that it would even be published on this site. I don't think I'll bother to look at this site in the future.

By Ron Atley on Mar 4, 2009 at 10:56 am

One additional myth often posed about this battle-The Indians used bows and arrows, with Custer's men better armed with rifles. The fact that many of the indians were armed with better weapons (some with repeating arms) and outnumbered their blue coated foes were the primary factors in the battle's outcome. The poor performance of the black powder cartridges that the cavalrymen used, and the unfortunate tendancy of their single shot spencers to jam when hot (brass couldn't be extracted after firing) contributed to the problems faced by the troopers. BTW, If Custer's tactics were as good as the author portrays here…why did he lose?

By CDB on Mar 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm

I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS ALREADY MADE. THE AUTHER COMMENTS ABOUT CUSTERPHOBES. THE AUTHOR COMES ACROSS AS A CUSTER FANATIC. THE BEST COMMENT ABOVE IS, IF CUSTER'S TACTICS WERE SO MASTERFUL, WHY DID HE LOSE?

By WAYNE FLINT on Mar 11, 2009 at 5:06 pm

you have been talking about the battle of the greasey grass,and assume that the oral history of whites is horrable,so indian oral history must be worse,,,biggates

By napi mclendon on Mar 20, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I am a little taken aback by the strongly negative comments on this article. I found it to be interesting and informative, and I did not see the grammatical errors that one commentator mentioned. I agree that the term "Custerphobe," was probably inappropriate in the context of a "myth buster"-style discourse that purports to set the record straight, since it suggests the author has an agenda. It would have been nice to have a map or two so that one could see the locations referenced. Otherwise, good job.

By Frank Eskridge on Mar 23, 2009 at 10:13 am

I too agree with most people here. As someone studying and putting together my own article on what went wrong and why Custer lost, I felt this article lost the mark on many levels. The biggest problem was, as noted, that Custer did everything right, but no reflection on why he lost. I suggest in my article that the loss was deliberately calculated by the government as a whole – or for those who hate conspiracy theories – that the government was too stupid to know how many Indians had combined in protection of the Black Hills. Custer believed all the reports at the time that there would be no more than 800 to 1,000 Indians out there and felt he could make them run, the way he always had. He was wrong, this time.

By the way any Indian version is as valid as any white's. But they relate things differently, each with a different perspective. That has to be taken into account.

By Monette Bebow-Reinhard on Mar 23, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I believe Spencers were actually repeating rifles…Custer's troops were probably armed with a mix of Springfields, Sharps and perhaps a few Remington Rolling Blocks…these were indeed single shots and very prone to jamming…particularly when overheated from rapid firing.
Regards from a retired Cavalry Colonel, and former troop commander in 4/7th Cavalry, Korea, 1973…Garry Owen

By Bill Jordan on Mar 23, 2009 at 8:02 pm

There are obviously some commenters on here who don't know a thing about the so-called "Custer's Last Stand". If you don't know how Custer lost after all the literature on him, then you shouldn't be commenting.

I'm sure this article was written for people of all ages. That would include grade school children. But, then, there are some on here who don't know why Custer lost that probably benefitted by the simplicity of the article. Maybe the will go on to read something at a bit higher level.

By Ross on Mar 24, 2009 at 1:24 am

I was very open to a "New" idea reguarding the 28 odd missing bodies of deep ravine, and was hop9ing Greg Michno's book could have been better developed. When you have vivid recollections from Benteen, McDougal, and others stating emphatically that they saw and counted those men lying in a heap at the bottom of such a steep-sided ravine, and a trail of dead leading right to it, it is indeed a far cry to try to establish them being covered in somthing as shallow as cemetary ravine. Sorry Greg, I think you are way out -of -bounds on this one and just wanted to get out another book.

By Ken Stasiak on Mar 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Custer did everything right, he used the best tactics and he surprised the indians, in a village that you state categorically was not unconquerable, yet somehow your brilliant lt col not only got himself killed(which is his right) but he got all of his men killed uselessly. How can you possibly square those things up?

By the way, the village WAS unconquerable for both Reno AND Custer, the facts have proven that to everyone except a Custer-phile like the author.

By William Hale on Mar 31, 2009 at 4:41 am

There are some who feel that Custer may have been killed or seriously wounded on the onset of the fight causing severe demoralization. It is a picture most of us "Custer" buffs can't grasp.I think the village could have been captured,or should I say the non-combatants could have been taken, and that is probably what drew Custer's contingent so far to the north. Custer was probably at first elated when Reno was occupying the fighting men at the south end of the Villiage. He thought he had smooth sailing!What could the warriors have done if the wives,children and old ones were surrounded by armed cavalrymen? Picture the Indian's exodus of flight, and Custer's men persuing them until they themselves were swallowed up by really angry warriors.

By Ken Stasiak on Mar 31, 2009 at 4:02 pm

Willaim, according to Kill Eagle (an Indian in the Camp of Sitting Bull), a man named Ridgely (a white captive who witnessed the battle) and Curly the Upsaroka scout…the battle began at two o'clock and continued until the sun went down behind the hills.
Custer lived until nearly all his men were killed or wounded(the last man killed reported to have been Adjutant Cook who rode a white horse). Custer took a bullet to the left side and sat down pistol in hand: another shot struck him and he fell over. He was apparenly not wounded prior to the first shot to the side since Curly went to him in a lull in the fighting when he saw that the party was to be entirely cut to pieces, he approached the General begged that he would permit him to show a way of escape which his powerful thoroughbred could easily have aided him to accomplish. Custer dropped his head upon his breast and after a moment of thought looked at Curly, motioned him away with his hand and went back to die with his men. Had he been wounded I beleive Curly would have mentioned it. In addition, concerning weapons. Custer refused General Terry's offer of a battery of Gatling guns, saying it might embarrass him.

He was basically intending to hold position until the rest of Gen.Terry's, Gen. Crook's and Colonel Gibbon's forces arrived. Reportedly, Terry's troops numbered 600 cavalry and 400 enfantry. Crook's troops consisted of 47 officers, and 1000 men. Gibbon marched with 450 cavalry and infantry. Had Reno and Benteen done their duty it is quite probable the the Indians could have been kept in check until General Terry arrived.
Apparently, they had enough man and fire power to prevail…but Shit Happens.

By Ann on Apr 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm

From this article it seems that the "battle" was just a rout till the last of Custer's troopers reached the end of the ridge. Hmmm….seems a lot like the Alamo "battle" where almost half of the Alamo "garrsison"(about 125 "defenders") jumped the walls of the Alamo compound into the surrounding countryside, only to be killed by Mexican lancers!

By Roger Borroel on Apr 8, 2009 at 7:27 pm

I have to agree with most of Michno's article. However, as I have come to realize from my 3 visits to the battlefield and reading some 40 books on the subject. No one has the answer to what really happened, but many have theories about what happened. One big question that has not been answered for me is why one of the most respected and bravest and aggressive calvary soldier in the Civil War never actually attacked the village. And as a disciplanarian why his 5 troops were so unorganized in the end. One answer for me is that Custer was incapacitated at Medicine Tail Coulee ford. Probably with the chest wound . This had a ripple affect on the command and resulted in little evidence of an organized defense by the command other than at Calhoun Hill. I know that many have Custer not part of the troops approaching MTC ford, but what else other that Custer going down could have stopped the attack on the village. Particularily since by all Indian accounts the ford was lightly defended. And where better to divide the warriors from the rest of the village fleeing.

By Charlie Eyster on Apr 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm

I found Greg Michno's article on the Ten Mistakes about the Little Bighorn to be an excellent introduction to the subject and — obviously — a springboard to controversy. Two contributions of my own to some of Michno's detractors: Ridgely, who claimed he saw the battle, was obviously lying — he was cutting hay in a different part of Montana on June 25 and his account is ludicrous in parts. Ridgely has the Lakota burning six captives alive and claims that Sitting Bull was a half-breed — both nonsense; Curley the Crow scout never got anywhere near Custer Hill. Curly told Walter Mason Camp — and Curley's relatives confirmed to me almost a century later — that he left the column at the same time as Daniel Kanipe, Custer's next-to-last messenger, and well before Giovanni Martini, Custer's final messenger. Conversely I think that the 28 dead men found in the Deep Ravine were pretty much evidential fact. Leaving out the question of the "last ditch," the rest of Michno's article is just about perfect. My entire research staff concurs — well researched, well written, a solid contribution to "Wild West."

By John Koster on Apr 19, 2009 at 1:50 pm

I am a high school senior and I guess you would say a history geek. I have read historical books throughout my lifetime and I would have to agree with other commentors. The article's narrative voice is TO strong.

In historical articles, one has to watch what he says and presents BOTH sides of the agrument. One also has to take in account that Native Americans never wrote their history down; they would tell their children or their children's children. AND there are over thousands of Native Americans languages alone, so translation could've been lost and other things.

This article is good, but there should be both sides of the argument and it's very opinionated which is a bad thing in an artcile.

Please excuse my spelling mistakes ^_^

By Aja Barnett on Apr 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm

NB — "Thousands" of American Indian languages is mild hyperbole — there were probably about 300 in the days of Eurpean contact. Only three — Lakota, Cheyenne, Crow and Arikara — would have been a factor at the Little Bighorn.Also, worth noting is that Little Bighorn accounts were generally told to officers or reporters within the participant's lifetime — many errors came not from the Indians but with reporters trying for a bigger headline. One problem that does exist is the each Indian tended to describe his own part in the fighting rather than trying for a comprehensive picture. The archeology of Richard Fox and Doug Scott broadly confirms the accuracy of what the Indians had to say. The shady stories about a "Siouz ambush", grass braided together and visual descriptions of Custer's Last Moments came mostly from white pe0ple who weren't there.

By John Koster on Apr 26, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Personally, I found the article to be too the point. That said, it would have reflected better on the author and this magazine had the sarcasm and rather juvenile comments (ie: Deal with it, etc) been deleted before the article went to press.

What I also find interesting is that there appears to be 2 main schools of thought: Those who love Custer and those who despise him. Even after all this time, anything written about Custer or the Little Big Horn is sure to get some response.

While not a bad thing by itself, it also can be as detrimental to those who are merely seeking the truth as totally discounting the Indian accounts on one hand, and totally discounting the whites accounts on the other. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

By Dale Decker on Apr 28, 2009 at 12:39 am

I have been studying the general since I was an impassioned boy. I am 51 now and have written several academic papers on the man since. One particular question continues to plague me : why has so little been made of Renos intoxication in the feild, as was testified to in the militarys investigation of the days events? In what appears to be one of the most critical moments of the day, Reno lost the battlefeild initiative and subsequently ignorred repeated commands from Custers order for packs/support and Capt. Thompsons plea to heed them with his own column. As with any calamity, the buck stops at the bosses feet. And Custer was in charge. But the military swept a great deal under the rug at the time to not tarnish the images of many still in the regiment. We all tend to focus so much on Custer on that day because of his aura. But he was, even with the civil war record he had, ultimately human, and was colosally failed that day by the two men he required his own zeal and tenacity from–Reno & Benteen. I've always wondered why Custer kept Benteen in his command as well. The man loathed his leader and that is a cancer in an army unit. All their fault? Of course not. Could they have made a major difference? Obviously. The reconstruction of june 25th 1876 on the Little Bighorn River begins with motives, just like any current investigation. Find the truth by following the particapents motives and witnesses records. The rest is forensics. The complete picture is probably one that lines up everything that possibly could go wrong in the chain of command, and ultimately did. Churchill said that all the best laid plans of battle dissolve in seconds once the fray has begun. The only thing that keeps it from falling apart is unit cohesion. But then, if that had happened Custer may have become president, as many know. THAT is where any sane man would have drawn the line….LOL….

By PETER on May 11, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Having been employed as an interpretive ranger at the site for 10years, I had the opportunity to both meet Mr. Michno and discuss the myths that he advances.

While many of you may not like his rather brusque approach, no two people (including all Sioux and Cheyenne participants) saw the total action, and could not be on all parts of the field at one time. Mr. Michno offers the most plausible analysis circumstances of the pertinent event.

Actions were occurring simulatenously on Calhoun Ridge, Calhoun Hill, and the Keogh sector (among many), and with black powder smoke, screaming, and loose animals running amok, I defy anyone (this includes Custer and Crazy Horse) to give me exact information on what specifically was happening with any of the subordinate commands or bodies of warriors.

Mr. Michno illustrates, if you read it, that a commander makes decisions based upon the information known to him at the time, or in a very fluid action like the Little Bighorn, what some of his scouts thought the village was doing, where it was going, etc. In retrospect, some of it looks foolish, but at the time the decision was rendered, it was made on sound reasoning.

Custer was playing a dangerous hand on 25 June 1876, and there was little latitude for failure. I assume that at least one of has made a decision in your own life (based upon the best information and research available), that later bit you in the ass. Or are you all smothered in millions from your winnings on the stock market?

By Jeff Helmer on May 17, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Custer's biggest mistake was not accepting the offer of taking four companies of the 4th Cavalry with him. It would have augmented his force by about 200 troopers. In addition, the 4th would have been eager for a fight and formed an aggressive battalion, perhaps even being sent on "the scout" that Benteen took his lazy time on. You can bet that if Benteen and Reno where BOTH attacking the village with six companies instead of three while Custer circled behind the initial attack wouldn't have cut and run so fast. Plus, the 4th would have had employed much more haste in getting to the field of combat.

That said, let's give the Native Americans credit. They were fighting to protect the lives of their old people, women and children. They fought hard and well in terrain perfectly suited to their style of fightinng. But Custer did surpirse the camp not once but twice. A larger attacking force with reinforcements arriving 30 minutes sooner might have just tipped the balance in Custer's favor and allowed him to capture a large group of fleeing non-combatants, thus ending the battle with a lot fewer troppers being killed and a lot fewer Native Americans getting killed and harassed until the following spring.

By David Welch on Jul 22, 2009 at 10:42 pm

Most of this makes no sense. Of course there was a "Last Stand" no matter who named it that as described in your own article. We you flee so far, turn to fight because you can't go any further THAT is your last stand.
Lt. Rose got to the battle ground 5 years after the fact; how do you with any good sense take the number he gave as being in the revine as the acurate body count? That's just stupid.

By Muhamad on Sep 13, 2009 at 10:35 am

I think this was a wonderful, very informitive article. The light of truth is yet to be shined on this tragic time in our history.
A cover up? Definatly. Avoidable? Absolutly, but before the job is givin to the army. The one thing here in this article that jumps out at me is just how close Custer came to "winning"! But for a couple of incidents that could have gone either way, the battle was lost. ( this one among many others) In my opinion factors were as follows: Indian bravery and fighting prowess, Reno's cowardice, Benteen's hatred, lack of tactical cohesion on the part of the troopers due in large part to poor training and too many
"feriners"! Custers ego, and lastly destiny! Weaponry was not an issue. The 7th was armed to the teeth

By marshall schultz on Oct 25, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Hey. It doesn't matter. The Indians won. I salute them. Nobody will ever know or care exactly when Custer bought it. He was a putz, bottom of his class, in love with himself. Stop glorifying him. Get a life. You people, whose grammar and spelling is atrocious, I might add, probably dress up in 7th Calvary outfits every weekend to play make believe like little six year olds. He deserved to die just as much as Jesse James or Billy the Kid deserved to die. Unless you were actually there I don"t care to hear your opinions because that is all they are.

By jack hamar on Oct 26, 2009 at 9:27 am

Jack-o…it's Cavalry, not Calvary…ugh.

————————

"One additional myth often posed about this battle-The Indians used bows and arrows, with Custer’s men better armed with rifles. The fact that many of the indians were armed with better weapons (some with repeating arms) and outnumbered their blue coated foes were the primary factors in the battle’s outcome. The poor performance of the black powder cartridges that the cavalrymen used, and the unfortunate tendancy of their single shot spencers to jam when hot (brass couldn’t be extracted after firing) contributed to the problems faced by the troopers. BTW, If Custer’s tactics were as good as the author portrays here…why did he lose?"

By CDB on Mar 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm

The standard issue rifle for Custer's troopers were .45-55 (.45-70) single-shot Springfield carbines. They were indeed loaded with 55 grains of black powder. Black powder is very fouling and it is conceivable that after firing many rounds they may have had functioning problems. As another poster above noted, some few may have had Sharps single-shots and it is reported that Custer himself may have had his Remington rolling block which I believe was in .50-70 caliber, which was the standard military cartridge before the adaptation of the .45-70. The Indians had everything from bows and arrows to Sharps single-shots to muzzle-loading muskets to repeating Winchesters, Henrys, and Spencers. All BTW loaded with black powder cartridges. Generally, I think the Indians had more firepower. And of course they had wayyy more in numbers of combatants. Even the best laid plans and strategy is not enough if you are so significantly outnumbered and outgunned. CDB actually answers his own question within his post.

For what I consider the best theory as to how the Custer part of the battle unfolded, his movements, his strategy, and finally, a movement that he made based on his interpretation of the troops he saw on Weir Point, which most probably caused the unraveling of his command, read the book: Sole Survivor, by Douglas W. Ellison. In his book it is Mr Ellison's contention that it was actually 1st Lt. Algernon Smith (Co. E) who was shot at Medicine Tail Coulee. And yes Mich Bouyer sent Curley away before the Custer fighting began, although he was able to later report Custer's movements prior to his leaving.

By NorPlains on Nov 18, 2009 at 5:05 am

i agree with the people who reacted negatively to the several "deal with it" comments. this type of writing is extremely off-putting, even if the author is correct in his analysis.

one analysis of the battle that i read stated that a major reason for the defeat was that cavalry is almost useless once it is fighting on foot (1 out of 4 troopers has to hold horses) and that the terrain worked against the 7th because of all the ridges and gullies.

i think that we should rely heavily on physical evidence in analyzing the battle — eye-witness testimony is often unreliable.

every military person involved, including custer, made decisions that can be seen as mistakes in retrospect. However, the general who finally defeated the sioux respected custer when he realized that custer was one of the few men in that sector who actively pursued the indians.

By doug hogan on Dec 6, 2009 at 10:14 pm

the general who was quoted about custer was gen. nelson miles, one of our great military leaders. he basically mopped up the sioux after custer's defeat.
despite all of the criticisms of custer's tactics, the main difficulty the US army faced was in trying to catch up to the indians, who were generally more mobile. custer's tactics were based on this viewpoint — his main fear was that the sioux would get away, not stand and fight.

gen. miles defeated the sioux by persistently following and attacking them during the winter time, when the indians lost their mobility.

By doug hogan on Dec 6, 2009 at 10:23 pm

I find it amusing how so many people are quick to denigrate eye-witness testimony and accounts from Native Americans who were actually at the battle, while clinging desperately to their cherished hokum about this battle.

Just because historical fact challenges your Hollywood-myth belief-system coupled with white approbation, doesn't make it any less accurate. Historical fact isn't interested in your feelings or what you think is right or what should be.

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. This article lays out in detail myths that have been perpetuated throughout the years. If that upsets your world-view, well, too bad. Get over it.

–KMH

By Kenneth Mark Hoover on Dec 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Some excellent sustenance Mr. Michno and much to chew on. Ten is a good number and will capture one's attention, though not convinced 2-3 of these myths remain at the level you insist. But one must have 10, and 10 you produce.

I have no problems with the flippant comments closing several of your myths, as I've read enough blogs and Internet articles to know such attitudes are the norm. It antagonizes, rattles and polarizes. I've read 10-15 books on this battle and assume others have a similar level of knowledge on this historic event. But after reading several comments above, I realize I am once again wrong. Several of the myths bandied about, which must date back to the 19th century, are cartoonish in level, revealing a complete lack of understanding on this engagement and the Native Americans who participated. White captives witnessing the Last Stand, some burned at the stake while children fired red hot arrows into their bodies, is the stuff of blood thirsty pulp fiction and Lone Ranger radio serials.

Anyway, the image of Crazy Horse riding north, gathering warriors as he rode along like an ever increasing, deadly snowball preparing to smash Custer's foray, is part of the legend of this battle capturing the imagination of students and tourists. The image is one of several reasons this battle fascinates the world. We can scoff and snort and sneer at the portrait, but without it, would people be as interested in this 1876 event? Would as many people buy your books? Which Native American accounts do we believe and which do we throw away? And why?

You mention this extraordinary encampment of militant warriors was not unconquerable, and yet, were they conquered? Crook retreated after the Rosebud battle, and all indications were he was rattled to the bone. He certainly did not conquer them. Reno retreated to a hilltop and was close to being routed before Benteen's arrival, so he did not conquer them. Custer and all of his men were cut, shot and beat down within an hour. He most certainly did not conquer them. So the very fact they carried the week and the day without defeat, means they were, in fact, unconquerable.

Custer may have indeed made some very strong and intelligent military moves while on the battlefield. And yet, if he had made strong and intelligent moves, shouldn't he have been successful? The fact he and every man with him were killed is evidence his decisions were poor. He underestimated the size of this enormous camp, evidence of this being his fateful decision to separate his men prior to battle. Furthermore, surprising the camp in such a manner, if anything sealed his doom. The Native Americans instinctively reacted, attacked and swarmed, thus Custer was routed quickly.

I've read so much information on what his scouts did or did not say I grow dizzy from all the conflicting information. By most accounts, these scouts were terrified and knew the size of this village was considerable. To attack at midday, when men and horses were exhausted from a fast, overnight march, and then to separate his men in such a fashion, was foolhardy. It's hard to imagine scouts would have recommended such action. And there were so many scouts, some fighting, others not, that I suspect there were as many opinions as teepees on the river. Custer attacked this village as if he was reliving Washita. But this encampment was 10 times the size of that village. And as historical results show, it was indeed unconquerable.

I could go on with several additional points you've made in your attempt to revise not only the legend, but many facts. No matter. You have written some interesting points – many of which are false – and in several cases you have sculpted a picture to fit your needs. Such is the fascination of this battle. This is still good work.

By Chris Kent on Dec 22, 2009 at 7:57 am