Face Off Stuart, Forrest, & Sheridan who?

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

Forrest was a mounted infantryman/irregular, which however valuable, is not quite the same thing. Nevertheless, I would not want to face him in battle. Or deal with him as someone raiding my supply lines. I just can't say he qualifies as a Great Cavalry leader just because what he did do was successful anymore than I can say that Meade was a great artillery commander because of Gettysburg on July 3, to exagerate the point a tad.

Can you please discribe what you mean by infantryman/irregular? Forrest certainly had no infantry training. Irregular, I'll accept, by virtue of the fact he was somewhat self taught, at considerable personal expense including wounds and loss of pride and manpower.

Forrest produced results when it counted and did it many times. That sets him apart from most if not all the others.

[Elennsar]

That is true as far as it goes. It must be noted that such work by Forrest and Morgan, while vital, is not their sole job...the cavalry still has to scout and screen.

Larry: Mounted infantryman in the sense I meant is is "get there on horseback, fight on foot." A dragoon but with more emphasis on fighting out of the saddle, basically. I'm not as familar with Forrest as I'd like, but this seems true (given his general credibility): http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=21

Wittenberg is the basis for my comments on Forrest and Sheridan both, to be honest.

I'm not entirely sure the "against the second team" part is true (as stated in another thread, the Western part of the war is not a strong suit of mine), but the rest sounds right.

Either way, Forrest was not a man to be treated lightly, despite his lack of formal education. If he had been better taught and a better subordinate, I can easily imagine him being unquestionably the best at least for the Confederacy.

Another part of the problem with rating his record...Forrest was a big bluffer.

Now, that's not to say bluff isn't a great tactic. But being great at fooling fools is not quite the same skill as being able to place a skirmish line just so, which is the kind of stuff that would place someone as a great general.

So, while I'd rate Forrest as respectable, I can't count him as Great.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

I dispute that Sheridan performed effectively. Read Wittenburg's Little Phil: A Reassessment of the Civil War Leadership of General Philip H. Sheridan. for a good explaination.

Sheridan was a fighter and a smasher and brought a much needed ruthlessness and energy to the Virgina theater. He won several battles and was instrumental in the last Virgina campaign. The man got results.

I think we can see now that all the Army of the Potomac and Army of the James ever needed was energetic leadership. When those armies finally had it, when fellas like Sheridan, Ord, Wright, Humphreys, Griffin, Parke and Gibbon had replaced the old slow guys like Sedgewick, Warren, Burnside, Butler, Smith---even Hancock---there was no stopping them.

And Sheridan was an instrumental part of that change.

[Elennsar]

Not really, no. (on Sheridan, not the AotP and AotJ's new leaders in general)

Sheridan was a pugnacious fighter, yes. Sheridan had a charismatic appeal to his men that's amazing, yes.

But Sheridan performed miserably as a tactician. He should have reduced the cavalry corps of the Army of Northern Virginia to a shattered husk, cowering in fear of his name.

Did he? No. The following is taken from Wittenburg's book.

The Wilderness: Rosser and a good force of horse artillery "shattered Wilson's line". No kudos here.

Spotsylvania Got in the way of the infantry on the marc, thusly "helping" Lee get to Spotsylvania Court House first.

Yellow Tavern: Sheridan, with most of the cavalry corps (leaving the main army without sufficient cavalry, it must be noted) Stuart is killed, Confederates driven back.

Sheridan then moves to linkup with the Army of the James (not the Army of the Potomac)

Meadow Bridge: Kudos to Custer and his Wolverines (brigade and commander together since Pleasanton. No credit to Sheridan for having some splendid insight to promote him at this time.) Good work.

Rejoins Army of the Potomac on the 25th (The above is the 12th)

In the meanwhile, said insufficient force with the entire army of the Potomac...five regiments. That is a pretty pitiful force.

Result: Raid unsuccessful (Confederacy cavalry still in fighting condition, Richmond still in Confederate hands)

Haw's Shop: Failure. Five brigades temporally "out of the war" while resting.

No cavalry support for Warren's crossing of the Totopotomoy Creek (May 29), possibly costing Meade the chance to crush Lee's vulnerable flank.

Old Cold Harbor: Fair fight to hold the ground, immediate withdrawl of nearly four miles after Wright's (VI Corps) corps arrives. An afternoon attack nearly succeeds in breaking Hoke's line, quite possibly would have with the addition of Sheridan's troopers.

Raid westward (intentions: "to destroy the railroad between Trevilian Station and Louisa, strike the railroad again again at Cobham's Station, destroying it from there to Charlottesville, and then link up with Hunter's advancing army.)

Tevellian Station: Very fierce fight, bad defeat for the Union.

Raid fails on all counts.

Wilson-Kautz raid: Fails. Sheridan (in his words) "...too late to render any material assistance, Wislon having already disappeared, followed by the enemy." Reprimanded by Meade for "his lackadaisical movement to support Wilson and Kautz." Severe damage dealt to the raiders (roughly a third of the raiders lost, along all of Wilson's artillery and wagon trains, and the "...transportation, wounded, and prisoners." of Kautz.)

Samaria (St. Mary's) Church: Gregg's division severely pounded, forced back in disorder. No thanks to Sheridan.

Raid to "...destroy the Virginia Central Railroad north of Richmond." Failed.

To be fair, Sheridan did have the full confidence of his men and they were feeling very aggressive and capable, but it is highly probable that a fair amount of this is due to the Cavalry Corps' performance in 1863.

As to the Shenandoah Valley, he performed almost as badly.

Wittenburg's book is admitedly written with the intent of lowering Sheridan a peg or two, but if his research is correct (and judging by his other books, there is no reason to doubt it here)...Sheridan was grossly overrated in 1864.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

Wittenburg's book is admitedly written with the intent of lowering Sheridan a peg or two, but if his research is correct (and judging by his other books, there is no reason to doubt it here)...Sheridan was grossly overrated in 1864.

I submit that overrated is not the same as ineffective. What's interesting is the fights you claim Sheridan was ineffective in were just that---fights. Sheridan fought and that's what the Federals needed to do, fight and keep fighting. No more McClellans, Hallecks, Buells and Rosecrans---just fight.

It seems odd to claim Sherman did poorly in the Valley seeing as he won the campaign. Perhaps he didn't perform as well as some would prefer but he did perform to the satisfaction of the man that counted---Grant.

And in 1865 Sheridan was instrumental in defeating Lee.

Regards

[Elennsar]

When he's consistently losing (and in a few of those cases, losing very seriously), the benefits are relatively minimal. It would have been better had either A) Buford lived (and gotten the job) or B) Gregg been promoted. Both had plenty of fight.

He won the campaign, yes. It would have taken a McClellan to lose it, however. Once again, Sheridan should have done much better than he did. Early was able to, despite his numerical inferiority, almost beat Sheridan on several occasions. It also seems that quite a bit of the victories Sheridan won are due (planningwise) to Crook, at least in large part. Now, in accepting and recognizing his subordinate had a good plan, that's a good thing, but its not the same as developing it.

Grant supporting Sheridan says as much for Grant's feelings for Sheridan as Grant's military judgment. He didn't care much for Thomas, who was arguably a better commander than Sherman (that discussion however does not relate to this, so I won't go into it) after all.

I would not say that Sheridan was a completely useless deadweight in the field the way McClellan and his ilk were. But I would also strongly argue that on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is a Burnside and 10 is a Lee (if we take Freeman's word for it), Sheridan is much more of a 3 or 4 in 1864 than the 9 he tends to be treated as.

As to 1865...perhaps.

On the whole, I would say Sheridan has no place in the Hall of Greats, and McClellan (in field command) no place anywhere near an army other than as a morale booster.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

That is true as far as it goes. It must be noted that such work by Forrest and Morgan, while vital, is not their sole job...the cavalry still has to scout and screen.

Larry: Mounted infantryman in the sense I meant is is "get there on horseback, fight on foot." A dragoon but with more emphasis on fighting out of the saddle, basically. I'm not as familar with Forrest as I'd like, but this seems true (given his general credibility): http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=21

Wittenberg is the basis for my comments on Forrest and Sheridan both, to be honest.

I'm not entirely sure the "against the second team" part is true (as stated in another thread, the Western part of the war is not a strong suit of mine), but the rest sounds right.

Either way, Forrest was not a man to be treated lightly, despite his lack of formal education. If he had been better taught and a better subordinate, I can easily imagine him being unquestionably the best at least for the Confederacy.

Another part of the problem with rating his record...Forrest was a big bluffer.

Now, that's not to say bluff isn't a great tactic. But being great at fooling fools is not quite the same skill as being able to place a skirmish line just so, which is the kind of stuff that would place someone as a great general.

So, while I'd rate Forrest as respectable, I can't count him as Great.

I could.

Forrest had no control over the intellectual attributes that the US Army sent to oppose him. [Wilson was no dummy, yet he learned much from Forrest until he could get his bearings.] Forrest was an 'innovator' and maker of progress as those terms relate to mounted warfare in the American continent. Crazy Horse or Geronimo might have been highly skilled; I have no source of knowledge on them.

Forrest had very competent subordinates, the key to much of his success. James Chalmers, William Henry Jackson and Alexander Buford were capable generals. Col. D.C. Kelly and young Capt. John Morton had few peers in mobile artillery. Again, they, like Forrest, received a lot of practical experience in their four years of warfare.

Forrest most times didn't have the luxury of time to place a skirmish line 'so so.'. The time for survival was a wastin'. His ability to make survivable decisions in the saddle was his link to legend in southern warfare. Given more time to arrange the event, he and his Critter Corps performed extremely well. It's in the record.

[Elennsar]

He may have had no control over it, but beating a Burnside who is determined to send human waves at your trenches is not much of an accomplishment. Same principle applies to the not-so-brights Forrest faced.

Survivable decisions, yes. The point was not "just so" vs. "good enough"...the point was that being a great bluffer (one of Forrest's great strengths as a commander) is not a sign of being great as a tactician.

That said, whether he was one of the greatest or simply very good, he handled his troops better than most, and that is excluding the outright idiots from the running.

[TheGallantPelham17]

The 'Boy Major', John Pelham, was the best cavalry officer. The reason J.E.B. Stuart was successful was because of Pelham. In fact, Pelham is the guy who revolutionized cavalry/artillery warfare because of his expertise with horses. The United States military even named two cannon brigades in honor of Pelham.

[Elennsar]

Was Pelham an amazing officer? Definately. Was he a commander of cavalrymen? No.

I dispute that he was a Great Cavalryman only because his branch was, however closely linked to tactically, different than the cavalry. I cannot make that part too clear...its not meant to say he was any less great, simply that his greatness was the greatness of an artillerist and not a leader of horsemen.

Good to see him mentioned...I don't think he made Stuart as invincible as he was (played a role but not the only role), but any list of the great subordinates Stuart had must include him.