Even though you never articulated what you really meant it's obvious what you meant. This is precisely what I said earlier in this thread how some of you unrealistically view this man as a Homeric throwback with Superman capability. All you did was take an numbers from a hagiography that never explained how raiders or insurgence operate and applied it to his war performance without explaining any variables to insurgency. I'll take your word for it that those were the actually numbers, but can you expound on your post a little to explain why think those numbers he supposedly was up against were a big deal? What does stationed or in the vicinity mean? Are you insinuating that those are the actually numbers NBF fought? What metric are you using? Are you insinuating that Forrest and his 5,000 men fought 100% of men in each engagement in at every battle? If you study study hit & run and insurgent tactics you will come to a shocking conclusion that he probably held the number advantage in every engagement for a short period of time and then bugged out. That is what insurgences do. It is like the Talban hitting the 1st Marine Division. I severely doubt they went toe to toe with that wrecking machine. That's never the insurgence objective. An insurgence objective is to disrupt and cause some terror, and then disappear. If you understood insurgency you would understand that insurgence never fight those type of numbers and never hold in place and fight very long and fight those type of battles you alluded to.
Here is what NBR grand strategy was in a nutshell: He used the classic triad for guerilla warfare: an analogous net of sympathizers, supporters and actives. Intelligence is critical to irregular warfare. Wherever the Yankees went, there were rebel eyes watching them and then broadcasting over a network of neighbors and friends, a web connection over which news traveled fast. He knew when and where to hit when he knew he had the advantage then he would disappear, which was right. And that is exactly what insurgence do to be successful. He was good at it. But never insinuate that he overcame those numbers from battlefield standpoint because it is not realistic. Now you know how insurgency works, so you can throw your numbers on top the heap of junk of Lost Cause mythology. I'll stand by what I said: his claim to fame was he diverted resources
I'm a little confused with your post: you are lobbying for a book but never proved that the content was authentic. You just spouted out a lot of rhetoric backed by your opinion without any evidence. If you are going to do that you have to prove that book to be accurate, it is called historiography. You no longer want to engage in a trivial CW forum history exchange, but you used a book to try to convince me that you have the right goods, but I am not remotely convinced.
Lesson #1: History is the event or period and the study of it. Historiography is the study of how history was written, who wrote it, and what factors influenced how it was written. You have to prove that book is accurate. I don't have to debunk anything or prove anything because I wasn't the one who made any claims about that book. You made the claims, so you do the work. Are saying that you read all the critical critiques reviews on that book that was written in the 1950s? Back your assertions with the critical critiques that failed to debunk that book's authenticity. Post a Peer Review on that book on that subject that proves your assertions to be correct. Prove that authors credibility and that books accuracy. Yeah, you are graduating from being a 21st century blogger to an internet sleuth. Start by proving that books accuracy and that authors credibility. Please save the rhetoric, lip service and opining because historiography does not accept any of that noise. Historiography accepts proof that author was credible and the content was accurate. Until you prove it, that author and the content of that book are not accepted. Like it or not, your opinion, join date and overgeneralizations prove nothing. Your have a lot to learn about historiography, and that's because you haven't met graduate student criteria yet. Not even close...