What if N. B. Forrest was attached to J . E. Johnston's army in 1864?

[EricJacobson]

What if Johnston would have had the use of Forrest's cavalry during the Atlanta Campaign? How might the campaign have been different?

[30th_il]

NB Forrest would've beat the tar outta Johnston.

[richard]

That is a very intresting question. Forrest was very good at what he did. What helped make him good was his knowledge of the area of operation that he was in. He did have some experience in north Ga. from the year before, but not too much south of Dalton.

Again, you have two very different actors in the play. Johnston was to a degree, passive and Forrest was agesssive. He (Forrest) would have carried out his orders with great results as he always did.

See you at Indianapolis.

[5fish]

T have a question:

In 1864 and even in 1863, the confederate cavalry under Stuart was suffering from the lack of fresh horses and the food and other supplies to maintain the cavalry in fighting shape.

Can I assume that Forrest cavalry was suffering from the same issues or since he was not operating with a major army like Stuart, his cavalry had less wear on it horses.

In the east under Sheridan the union cavalry had ascended to become the dominate force, outperforming confederate cavalry; so would not the same thing have happen in the west. If true then Forrest would have been no more effective then Wheeler was in George.

I am not a big fan Forrest.

[EricJacobson]

Richard,

See you in April. I look forward to meeting you.

Eric

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by 5fish

T have a question:

In 1864 and even in 1863, the confederate cavalry under Stuart was suffering from the lack of fresh horses and the food and other supplies to maintain the cavalry in fighting shape.

Can I assume that Forrest cavalry was suffering from the same issues or since he was not operating with a major army like Stuart, his cavalry had less wear on it horses.

In the east under Sheridan the union cavalry had ascended to become the dominate force, outperforming confederate cavalry; so would not the same thing have happen in the west. If true then Forrest would have been no more effective then Wheeler was in George.

I am not a big fan Forrest.

The major difference was that Forrest was at "home" in Missississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky. He was among 'friends'. I think it's safe to say that more horses were available in those areas perhaps than in the eatern theatre. Forrest replaced his mounts, and his comand, on at least three different occasions. That was a constant thing. The travels of Forrest's command has been mapped several times. It looks very much like a modern highway map of Kentucky and Tennessee along with northern Mississippi and northern Alabama. I suspect he had far more miles under his belt than Wheeler. Forrest was a very good planner whose scouts were perhaps his greatest assets aside from his ability to make quick forceful decisions. Forrest was a superior warrior and tactician. Little doubt of that.

[richard]

Just to add to Larry's post, Forrest made good use of the fine horses and arms that he "Barrowed" from the Union Cavalry and supply trains. Don't discount the "Fear Factor", as many men including the USCT had a fearful respect of Forrest.

Thus said, It is hard to say just how all of this would come together under Johnston. It was only after Johnston had lost Atlanta that Hood OK'ed Forrest's raid on the Nashville and Decatur Railroad in late September of 1864. This raid was something that Forrest had wanted to do months sooner.

Something else to consider was Forrest's reputation with commanding officers. Would Johnston allow Forrest to have such a "free" command? What if Forrest did make a difference in the the fall of '64, would Johnston take advantage of it?

Most likely, Forrest was better off in the West. In his September raid into Middle Tennessee, he really but a burr under the saddle of a ton of Union Cavalry.

[5fish]

Larry,

Stuart's cavalry is in a disheveled shape unable to find horse and even food. He was directly under Lee, you would think he would get the best the south had left but he was left out to dry.

In Lee's army the cavalry man own his own mounts was this not the same for Forrest men as well. The north the horses were owned by the union army but what I know about the south a cavalry man bought and owned his own horse. Why would Forrest cavalry be any different from Stuart Cavalry?

It sound like Forrest's cavalry was functioning at a higher level then Stuart's cavalry. How can his be?

Maybe you can shed some light on this matter for me.

[larry_cockerham]

In 1930 Marine Capt. ret. John Thomason Jr. wrote of J.E.B. Stuart: "He wore out his horses and he wore out his men. He rode big animals of the hunter type, blood bays with black points, for choice, and his brother William Alexander, was kept on the lookout for such mounts. Admirers gave him horses, splendid blooded reatures like Star of the East from Farquier, and Skylark from Maryland; none of them lasted long under the service he exacted. He rides for fifty hours -- as in the Gettysburg campaign, holding, toward the last, the wretched troopers behind him in their saddles by sheer force of personality; the column halts while a detail is dismounted to pull down a rail fence, and the details falls asleep across the rail as it is moving, and the rest fall asleep in their saddles, and the horses stumble and roll against each other in ranks--- and only then does he grant an hour's rest, very much disgusted because he has to grant it. "

Much of that sounds like N.B. Forrest, though Forrest had less territory to cover at a given task and probably had much more knowledge of the geography in which he served. That accounted for a certain degree of efficiency on Forrest's part that perhaps Stuart didn't possess. Forrest had 29 mounts killed from beneath him in combat. He was more of a warrior, less of a showman. I think that was the main difference between the two men. Forrest was at war, Stuart was performing.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

In 1930 Marine Capt. ret. John Thomason Jr. wrote of J.E.B. Stuart: "He wore out his horses and he wore out his men. He rode big animals of the hunter type, blood bays with black points, for choice, and his brother William Alexander, was kept on the lookout for such mounts. Admirers gave him horses, splendid blooded reatures like Star of the East from Farquier, and Skylark from Maryland; none of them lasted long under the service he exacted. He rides for fifty hours -- as in the Gettysburg campaign, holding, toward the last, the wretched troopers behind him in their saddles by sheer force of personality; the column halts while a detail is dismounted to pull down a rail fence, and the details falls asleep across the rail as it is moving, and the rest fall asleep in their saddles, and the horses stumble and roll against each other in ranks--- and only then does he grant an hour's rest, very much disgusted because he has to grant it. "

Much of that sounds like N.B. Forrest, though Forrest had less territory to cover at a given task and probably had much more knowledge of the geography in which he served. That accounted for a certain degree of efficiency on Forrest's part that perhaps Stuart didn't possess. Forrest had 29 mounts killed from beneath him in combat. He was more of a warrior, less of a showman. I think that was the main difference between the two men. Forrest was at war, Stuart was performing.

Larry,

This is where I question historians for if you think about it every Southern cavalry man with Stuart must have owned at least five horses or more.

I am questioning that South cavalry man own their own horses in Stuarts service. Think how many horses they went through in a year. Think of the money it must would have taken to maintain one's own horses.

Horses are animals and can only take so much abuse, so much wear before they would be useless for cavalry work. This is not taken into account the animal being killed during battle or dieing from decease.

I have always read the Stuart's men own their own horses and Lee even say the same thing to Grant but does it makes sense. "No, if you thinks about"

It is unpractical for a soldier to own his own horse the money and upkeep would be to great a burden but it does sound romantic a plantation owner taking his horse to war with him.

I do not know the truth is somewhere in the middle. I just have not read enough to know the true story.

Larry, maybe you know the truth. Did Forrest own his own horses or did the confederate army and how did he afford to replace 20plus horses as well as his men.

How did Forrest change out all of his horse three time as you mention?

I am looking for clarity, Larry or anyone!