Custer Forrest or Custer

[Jobe wilson]

Who was a better cavalry commander

 

[James N.]

Who was a better calvary commander

Jobe, watch your spelling - welcome to the forums anyway!

 

[Mike Serpa]

Welcome.

 

[truthckr]

welcome

 

[DanF]

The Sioux vote for Forrest.

 

[Nathanb1]

The Sioux vote for Forrest.

 

[War Horse]

Welcome from North Carolina

 

[leftyhunter]

Who was a better calvary commander

Many on this forum have argued that Forrest was not a true calvery General but more of a mounted infantry General. We have a published author on this site but I don't want to misspell his name. He has recently posted on the Gettysburg subforum about the question "should Stuart have been courtmartialed?
Leftyhunter

 

[Michael W.]

Welcome!!

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

Howdy and Welcome!!
Note: Forrest is "Mounted Infantry"?????......Now I have heard it all!!
He was, without doubt, Cavalry.....He just used better tactics than other conventional cavalry commanders of his day!!
He also captured and used ships......Does that make him a Naval force, too??

Sorry to get off topic......I will stop now!

 

[Jobe wilson]

Sorry about the spelling error, my phone has a correct problem. And thank you for having me.

 

[lelliott19]

Welcome @Jobe wilson We are happy to have you - whether you can spell or not.

Im guessing you might enjoy the Forrest Forum which can be found here http://civilwartalk.com/forums/nathan-b-forrest.176/

The moderators of the Forum @Nathanb1 @diane @DixieRifles and @7th Mississippi Infantry are very hospitable and the topics are numerous! Enjoy!

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Welcome @Jobe wilson We are happy to have you - whether you can spell or not.

Im guessing you might enjoy the Forrest Forum which can be found here http://civilwartalk.com/forums/nathan-b-forrest.176/

The moderators of the Forum @Nathanb1 @diane @DixieRifles and @7th Mississippi Infantry are very hospitable and the topics are numerous! Enjoy!

Thanks Laura !

I was about to invite Jobe to visit the Forrest forum, you beat me to it.

 

[Nathanb1]

Sorry about the spelling error, my phone has a correct problem. And thank you for having me.

The General hates auto-correct. Welcome. That author is Eric Wittenberg, who's currently working on a book about Abe Buford, who served under THAT GUY .,,I'd also love to invite you to our little forum, where you can read about both of them,

PS....THAT GUY is shorthand for Forrest.

 

[diane]

Hello! Welcome. Sure, come on over to our campfire and we'll tell you why Forrest isn't mounted infantry...

Custer and Forrest. Well, I admit I'm biased but I don't think Custer was half the commander Forrest was. Custer was a good cavalryman, better than many have thought, but he was no Forrest! For one thing, he was half the age of Forrest and needed a lot more experience in everything. He didn't have the instinct for picking his battles and properly estimating the real capacity of the enemy, tended to be truly reckless and lucky. Forrest, on the other hand, didn't (unless somebody ordered him to anyway) fight a battle he wasn't fairly certain he could win, and he was an excellent tactician. Like Stuart, he knew how to correctly size up the topography of a battlefield and what the enemy would do under the circumstances. Seldom underestimated, very careful of the lives of his men, never reckless except for an extreme emotional moment at Okolona. Can't think of another instance where Forrest was really impulsive. Custer had a problem telling reckless from daring.

 

[W. Richardson]

Welcome to the greatest Civil War Forum on the net !!

Forrest !!

Respectfully,
William

 

[rpkennedy]

Howdy and Welcome!!
Note: Forrest is "Mounted Infantry"?????......Now I have heard it all!!
He was, without doubt, Cavalry.....He just used better tactics than other conventional cavalry commanders of his day!!
He also captured and used ships......Does that make him a Naval force, too??

Sorry to get off topic......I will stop now!

The biggest issue with Forrest as a cavalrymen is that he displayed little interest in the typical role of cavalry. He was an outstanding raider and striker but he was very poor when it came to reconnaissance and intelligence gathering.

R

 

[bankerpapaw]

Welcome from Arkansas.

 

[cash]

Howdy and Welcome!!
Note: Forrest is "Mounted Infantry"?????......Now I have heard it all!!
He was, without doubt, Cavalry.....He just used better tactics than other conventional cavalry commanders of his day!!
He also captured and used ships......Does that make him a Naval force, too??

Sorry to get off topic......I will stop now!

No, he wasn't a true cavalryman. Eric Wittenberg has posted a great deal on this.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/top-three-corp-commanders.77960/page-4#post-696779

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/gen...te-army-of-tennessee.92859/page-2#post-766926

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=21


As Eric said, trying to compare Custer to Forrest is an apples to oranges comparison.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/gen...te-army-of-tennessee.92859/page-2#post-766955

Custer was a cavalryman, Forrest wasn't.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Forrest was a better general than Custer. It doesn't mean Custer was a bad general, just not as good.