Custer Forrest or Custer

[diane]

Actually, cash is pretty much correct; the incidents you refer to are more properly raids rather than the actual function by cavalry as part of an army: screening and reconnaissance, of which Buford's action at Gettysburg is a perfect example. Either because Bragg or Joe Johnston didn't really understand how to properly employ their mounted arm, or rivalry between Forrest and Joe Wheeler prevented their cooperation, Forrest did relatively little in this regard and usually operated independently like on the raids you mention.

Can I haul out the retreat from Nashville? He did a good job of covering Hood there. But you're right - Forrest was not chomping at the bit to do the methodical and frankly boring stuff, although when he did do it he was actually good at it. But he wasn't educated, wasn't upper class and wasn't West Point - these things acted as a sea anchor on his military career.

I think Bragg did not use Forrest well at all, nor did Hood. Forrest was not a man used to taking orders, either, but that doesn't mean he couldn't work well with others. Wheeler had sent him off to get shot up at Dover and it wasn't rivalry so much as a strong aversion to being under somebody he considered an idiot. (Wheeler wasn't the sole ninny, Bragg made double the dummies.) Johnston and Bragg both wanted West Pointers - although late in the day Johnston realized Forrest was a right useful fellow, but Davis had already formed one of his immovable opinions about the cavalryman. Johnston, being in dutch with Davis anyway, was probably not the guy to advocate for Forrest's advancement with the president!

 

[Borderruffian]

Can I haul out the retreat from Nashville? He did a good job of covering Hood there. But you're right - Forrest was not chomping at the bit to do the methodical and frankly boring stuff, although when he did do it he was actually good at it. But he wasn't educated, wasn't upper class and wasn't West Point - these things acted as a sea anchor on his military the guy to advocate for Forrest's advancement with the sident!

He also did a great job geting his force and oothers out of the Henry\Donelson debacle and back to Nashville.

 

[Stony]

Forrest everyday of the week. I would rather have served under him too.

 

[James N.]

I'll also add that that other well-known Confederate cavalryman of the Western theater John Hunt Morgan was also more of a raider than one to perform the hard work of screening and reconnaissance necessary for the combined arms of a field army.

 

[diane]

He also did a great job geting his force and oothers out of the Henry\Donelson debacle and back to Nashville.

That involved everything cavalry. He and his brother scouted out the crossing - up and down the creek they saw nothing blue. Also, the arrival of Buell at Shiloh - Forrest was the only one with the correct, real time information and couldn't find anybody to give it to and when he did he was told his nerves were shot and he needed some sleep... Which brings me to another point I often wave around - Forrest deserved better superiors on many occasions!

 

[diane]

I'll also add that that other well-known Confederate cavalryman of the Western theater John Hunt Morgan was also more of a raider than one to perform the hard work of screening and reconnaissance necessary for the combined arms of a field army.

I can't off hand think of an instance where Forrest caused some problems by his raiding - Morgan did from time to time. He was very much a raider. Forrest did light off Chickamauga at Reed's bridge - oops! - but that would have happened anyway.

 

[civilken]

I couldn't say I honestly believe they would to totally different individuals.

 

[Northern Light]

Forrest was a man of many parts, not all of them good, but I have to like him more than Custer, who just gets up my nose in a lot of ways.

 

[civilken]

I always seem to stick with the North but honestly on this one is not even close its like Superman or any man forest was the wizard of the saddle.

 

[civilken]

I couldn't say I honestly believe they would to totally different individuals.

I want everyone to know I'm talking to myself I can't believe I said that once again forest.

 

[Railgunner52]

Custer was an @$$-hole who got lucky a few times. Got what he deserved in the end though.

 

[Railgunner52]

Not much to debate.

 

[AUG]

It just semantics. The Civil War saw changes in how cavalry were used. Forrest preferred to fight dismounted to protect his precious mounts and to better utilize his weapons. I can see how you might coin the term "mounted infantry" yet still, the term "dismounted cavalry" is also correct.
"Was Sheridan influenced by Forrest" sounds like a very interesting topic.

Actually mounted infantry and dismounted cavalry in the ACW were two different things. Mounted infantry were, just as the name implies, infantry mounted on horseback who rode to battle, dismounted and fought on foot. Now dismounted cavalry were cavalry that had been permanently dismounted - their horses taken away - and fought as infantrymen.

There were many Texas cavalry regiments that were later dismounted and turned into infantry on account of there being too many cavalry regiments and a need of more infantry. Two Texas brigades - Granbury's and Ectors - that fought east of the Mississippi consisted of five and three dismounted cavalry regiments respectively, as well as infantry regiments. Some of those in Granbury's Brigade were actually consolidated with infantry regiments. Despite being turned into infantry they retained their cavalry designation, for example the 10th Texas Cavalry (Dismounted).

 

[Northern Light]

I saw a new book at Chapter's about Custer-
Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America-T.J Stiles
Has anyone read it? It was published last year.

 

[James N.]

I saw a new book at Chapter's about Custer-
Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America-T.J Stiles
Has anyone read it? It was published last year.

No, but a week ago or less I saw a joint interview with Stiles and 3 other writers, all of whom were candidates for somebody's best military history of the year award. (It was won by a book on the French and Indian War.) By his own admission, Stiles falls into the category of Custer-basher seeing the Boy General as a product of his times, which in itself sounded interesting. According to him, there's virtually nothing in it on the Little Big Horn, but it sounded to me like he was all-too-ready to accept the negative narratives of haters like Benteen, etc.

 

[Michael W.]

The Sioux vote for Forrest.

Forrest, of course. The Sioux had good taste......

 

[jackt62]

On the basis of victories won, Forrest would have to be the winner hands down. Given that he was not a professionally trained soldier made his command skills all the more impressive compared to Custer.

 

[dlofting]

By his own admission, Stiles falls into the category of Custer-basher seeing the Boy General as a product of his times, which in itself sounded interesting. According to him, there's virtually nothing in it on the Little Big Horn, but it sounded to me like he was all-too-ready to accept the negative narratives of haters like Benteen, etc.

Stiles book is well worth reading. I'm surprised he described himself as a "Custer-basher".....I found his book to be quite even handed.

He does include the following note when Benteen first appears in the narrative.

Benteen remains a divisive figure for biographers and historians. Given Benteen's investment in his hatred of Custer, his reliability as a source is dubious. In these pages he will only be quoted or cited regarding matters of which he had firsthand knowledge, and where other sources substantiate his claim.

 

[dlofting]

Custer was an @$$-hole who got lucky a few times. Got what he deserved in the end though.

I won't argue with the first part of your post.....Custer was certainly that at times. He did get lucky, but more in the sense of the luck that Napoleon wanted his generals and marshals to have.

He was a competent cavalry commander and tactically sound. At the LBH he followed the accepted tactics of the time and within that framework made the right decisions. However, he seriously underestimated the size of the opposing force, their will to fight and the competence of their leaders like Crazy Horse and Lame White Man.

 

[James N.]

Stiles book is well worth reading. I'm surprised he described himself as a "Custer-basher".....I found his book to be quite even handed...

My interpretation, not his! This joint "interview" featured four authors of widely divergent periods (Braddock's Defeat in the Fernch and Indian War; Custer; the Battle of Cantigny in WWI; and yet another on Nazi Germany) and switched between them for point and counterpoint. I suppose it would be fairer to Stiles to describe him as a critical biographer rather than a worshipful one.