Only from what we had in Command & Staff.
1) IMHO, we disagree.
2) Concur. IMHO, insufficient evidence to justly convict based upon contradictory timelines and when messages were received and corroborated by their peers. Due to the after action reports which were very much influenced by political climates in prof Army service, I have cause to question the veracity of either perspective, so I’ll withhold judgment on condemning the junior officers and survivors.
3) Principles of Warfare as taught from Napoleon to the American Civil War provided ample evidence of the consequences of failing to mass one’s forces at the critical moment of decisive engagement on the battlefield.
4) More critical than the determined fight was the size of the opposing force which was grossly underestimated by Custer.
5) His approach was closer to Janet Reno’s than Reno’s grab their nose and Custer “kick-em-in-the-butt”. Blunder in and get the hornet’s nest all riled up, then blunder in the rear with a split force, insufficiently supplied and reinforced, deploy without any recourse and face the mass of the enemy force which was 10 times the commander’s estimate of the situation, ...viola decimation of the attacking force.
BTW, arrogance was also a known attribute of Patton as well, although his military battlefield career is, IMHO, much greater, better planned, more professional, and well practiced than Custer’s.
The Indians never read about Napoleon. They did not fight like a regular army. As I stated before, splitting up of one’s forces was a standard and successful tactic used against the American Indians. You cannot argue against success.
Up until the Little Big Horn, the decisive moment in any Indian battle was when the army was threatening the woman, children and elderly. If supported properly, it would have been the same here.
You blame Custer for under-estimating the size of the enemy force. Do you also blame him for the fact that the Indians opted to stand and fight this day, and not fight a delaying action? Do you blame him for their change in tactics? Up to that day, the size of the Indian force meant little. They would fight a delaying action and abandon the camp. The Army would burn the camp and kill the remaining horses while the Indians watched from a safe distance. If the Army was able to capture a large group of women, children and elderly, the braves would surrender.
Custer did not blunder in, as you put it. If you had read any books on the subject you would know that. He went in with a good plan - standard for Indian fighting.
Was Custer insufficiently supplied and reinforced? Yes. Was it his fault? No. As the article about Weir points out, Benteen did not bring up the needed supplies nor the reinforcements.
Reno made the odds against Custer so out of balance by retreating to a position that took him out of the fight. Custer had every right to believe that Reno would follow orders. If he had done so, he would have occupied the attention of most of the Indians, giving Custer a chance to capture the women, children and elderly.
I truly believe that you need to read some books on this subject, then you would not make foolish statements like your principles of warfare remark. The West Pointers were taught those principles and the smart ones quickly abandoned them when they encountered American Indians.
You also attack Custer for things beyond his control. You say that he deployed without any recourse. That is not true. He called for Benteen to come to him. He called for additional ammo. Neither happened.
It all boils down to this: The Indians realized that this was their last chance to preserve, for a while, their old way of life. On this sunny day in June of 1876, the Indians decided NOT to run, but to stand and fight. And you blame Custer for that decision!!!!!!