- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Location
- Lexington, SC
My vote goes to Stuart. I'm curious as to the thoughts of our community and why?
I like him also, but you have to admit at the beginning of the war. NO ONE out shined Stuart!My avatar ought to give my vote away....
I like him also, but you have to admit at the beginning of the war. NO ONE out shined Stuart!
Well I see my spelling skills have gotten me in trouble once again. I have corrected the title to reflect the correct word "Cavalier" My apologies.See @E_just_E above. Stuart was a professional, one reason Ashby's troopers preferred his individualistic approach that was definitely bad for unit cohesion but great for their morale. Also, he was a superb horseman according to every account and positively fearless and devoted to personal combat. Jackson protested in vain his promotion to brigadier, which made him the only general commanding a regiment!
Edit: I'm going on the basis of my understanding of the word cavalier in the title of the thread as a knightly and somewhat passe military entity and NOT as an effective commander of masses of mounted troops. In that particular case, I'd have to go with someone far less colorful like, say, Buford or David Gregg.
War Horse Dragoon = Horse Soldier - That's exactly what Forrest was !!!All of the choices possess certain qualities that are admirable. When it comes to demonstrating superior skills as a cavalry officer performing the duties of the cavalry. Screening the movement of the army, Gathering Intelligence and Protecting the flanks of the army. I think we have two real standouts on the list. Stuart and Buford. Ashby was to weak a disciplinarian, Custer was to head strong and tended to get himself and his men into trouble, Forrest fought more like a Dragoon. Hampton and Gregg were good just not on the same level as Stuart and Buford in my opinion. The two (Stuart and Buford) sparred like two heavy weight Champs throughout the war. Toe to Toe, Blow for Blow!
Agree. Buford was a dam good cavalry commander... but no cavalier... He focused on doing his job... not charging in with only glory as the goal...Edit: I'm going on the basis of my understanding of the word cavalier in the title of the thread as a knightly and somewhat passe military entity and NOT as an effective commander of masses of mounted troops. In that particular case, I'd have to go with someone far less colorful like, say, Buford or David Gregg.
Forrest preferred fighting dismounted and his men carried traditional infintry type weapons. If he ever Screened the movement of an army, I am not aware of it. He was hard hitting and loved to put on the skeer but a cavalry men he was not. Don't get me wrong he was very good at what he did.War Horse Dragoon = Horse Soldier - That's exactly what Forrest was !!!
Agree. Buford was a dam good cavalry commander... but no cavalier... He focused on doing his job... not charging in with only glory as the goal...
Forrest never did much real army cavalry work did he?
(screening an army, scouting for the army and so on)