I don't make any claim that Reno and Benteen behaved well, but Custer was responsible. He made a plan using these men, and he was the one responsible when it failed.
If he thought they weren't up to it, he should have planned something different. If they weren't up to it, and he didn't know it, then he by definition failed in the first responsibility of a commander.
“If Custer had had his full regiment”
The same could be said for Chelmsford at Isandalwhana (sp?). Three columns in rough country and failure to adhere to his own, written directives cost many a British soldier his life.
Again, I don’t know much about Custer and this battle, except in general terms, but, it seems to me part of a pattern of behavior common to a certain type of soldier; the hard-charging, flamboyant, self-possesed type typically leads his men into disaster through his own hubris, and more often than not, underestimating his enemy. This seems to be a common thread when discussing figures like Custer and Patton, for example.
Still, I think I’ll shall read a bit more, and appropos of nothing at all, I always think “big-headed jerk” whenever I hear the name Custer for some reason.
You cannot hold Custer responsible for a disaster that was caused by disobedience of Custer’s orders by Benteen and Reno!
Custer gave his orders, and they weren’t obeyed. Betrayal.
You are completely correct. The Commander is responsible for everything his men do or fail to do!