Custer Forrest or Custer

[Reb]

I don't know how true this is but I've read that one of the toasts that officers of the British Navy regularly proposed was to "a bloody war or a sickly season"........either of which would offer more opportunities for promotion.

I can remember as a Sergeant, walking into the Captain's office with my Lieutenant and stating that all my promotion and that of my Lieutenant's was hinged on was a bad snow storm.

 

[kholland]

*please - let's get back on the Custer-Forrest original post and off of army life reminiscences*

*posted as moderator*

 

[Reb]

*please - let's get back on the Custer-Forrest original post and off of army life reminiscences*

*posted as moderator*

 

[Seth Adam]

Well I really don't think you can even compare these two. I don't know any blunders at the top of my head Forrest committed. If he did, let me know. Custer, on the other hand, was neither reliable or a good strategist. At Little Bighorn, he not only split his forces to be cut down in detail, but he also was too over - confident to bring an important weapon: gatling guns. On the other hand, Forrest has done some of the most miraculous moves I have ever seen in warfare. He was also capable of commanding an entire corps, something we don't know Custer could've done. When I think of Forrest and a battle that represents his military career, I think of the Battle of Johnsonville. Union gunboats were coming down the Tennessee River to supply Sherman, but N.B. Forrest encountered them and literally had his men jump on the boats and slay the sailors. He captured a tin clad, and burnt millions of dollars of federal property to the TN river bed. On top of that, he cut Sherman's supply lines, which Sherman would otherwise sacrifice on his brilliant "March to the Sea." WW II general Rommel would study Forrest's tactics of mobile warfare, and use to great effect in the North African theatre to earn him the name "Desert Fox." Not to sound rude, but comparing these two is like comparing a Harvard professor to a elementary school substitute. Custer wasn't bad, but he was just not the man to depend on and made some very controversial decisions in his career.

 

[rpkennedy]

Well I really don't think you can even compare these two. I don't know any blunders at the top of my head Forrest committed. If he did, let me know. Custer, on the other hand, was neither reliable or a good strategist. At Little Bighorn, he not only split his forces to be cut down in detail, but he also was too over - confident to bring an important weapon: gatling guns. On the other hand, Forrest has done some of the most miraculous moves I have ever seen in warfare. He was also capable of commanding an entire corps, something we don't know Custer could've done. When I think of Forrest and a battle that represents his military career, I think of the Battle of Johnsonville. Union gunboats were coming down the Tennessee River to supply Sherman, but N.B. Forrest encountered them and literally had his men jump on the boats and slay the sailors. He captured a tin clad, and burnt millions of dollars of federal property to the TN river bed. On top of that, he cut Sherman's supply lines, which Sherman would otherwise sacrifice on his brilliant "March to the Sea." WW II general Rommel would study Forrest's tactics of mobile warfare, and use to great effect in the North African theatre to earn him the name "Desert Fox." Not to sound rude, but comparing these two is like comparing a Harvard professor to a elementary school substitute. Custer wasn't bad, but he was just not the man to depend on and made some very controversial decisions in his career.

You couldn't depend on Forrest as a cavalry officer either.

R

 

[Seth Adam]

You couldn't depend on Forrest as a cavalry officer either.

R

Elaboration, sources and evidence?

 

[Nathanb1]

How about "Rommel is a myth"? As a host of the Forrest forum I invite you to do some reading before getting in too deep. Welcome to CivilWarTalk.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Elaboration, sources and evidence?

Well, for one thing, there's that whole "Don't bother giving me orders again, because I will not obey them" thing....

 

[rpkennedy]

Elaboration, sources and evidence?

Forrest's history in performing the traditional roles of cavalry is pretty poor. As a raider, he was second to none but when placed into an army's structure and not in independent command, Forrest was not very good.

R

 

[dlofting]

At Little Bighorn, he not only split his forces to be cut down in detail, but he also was too over - confident to bring an important weapon: gatling guns.

Custer was right leaving the gatling guns behind at the depot. They would have slowed his march and couldn't have been deployed successfully at the LBH because of the terrain.

 

[cash]

Well I really don't think you can even compare these two. I don't know any blunders at the top of my head Forrest committed. If he did, let me know. Custer, on the other hand, was neither reliable or a good strategist.

Incorrect on both counts.

At Little Bighorn, he not only split his forces to be cut down in detail, but he also was too over - confident to bring an important weapon: gatling guns.

At Little Bighorn he used tactics that were time-tested against Native American forces. The problem wasn't the tactics he used. Also, he was right to leave the gatling guns behind. They would have slowed him down and were problematic in traveling over rough terrain.

Finally, using a battle from 1876 to try to criticize someone during the Civil War is not a good methodology.

On the other hand, Forrest has done some of the most miraculous moves I have ever seen in warfare. He was also capable of commanding an entire corps, something we don't know Custer could've done.

Custer succeeded at both brigade and division command. He never had the opportunity for larger command so we will never know.

WW II general Rommel would study Forrest's tactics of mobile warfare, and use to great effect in the North African theatre to earn him the name "Desert Fox."

No, he wouldn't--at least not in real life. He did so in a novel.

Not to sound rude, but comparing these two is like comparing a Harvard professor to a elementary school substitute. Custer wasn't bad, but he was just not the man to depend on and made some very controversial decisions in his career.

Incorrect again. I suggest looking at Custer's Civil War career. After Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Phil Sheridan wrote to Libbie Custer, "Permit me to say, Madam, that there is scarcely an individual in our service who has contributed more to bring about this desirable result than your gallant husband."

 

[Seth Adam]

Incorrect on both counts.



At Little Bighorn he used tactics that were time-tested against Native American forces. The problem wasn't the tactics he used. Also, he was right to leave the gatling guns behind. They would have slowed him down and were problematic in traveling over rough terrain.

Finally, using a battle from 1876 to try to criticize someone during the Civil War is not a good methodology.




Custer succeeded at both brigade and division command. He never had the opportunity for larger command so we will never know.



No, he wouldn't--at least not in real life. He did so in a novel.



Incorrect again. I suggest looking at Custer's Civil War career. After Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Phil Sheridan wrote to Libbie Custer, "Permit me to say, Madam, that there is scarcely an individual in our service who has contributed more to bring about this desirable result than your gallant husband."

You are missing on sources. And I can criticize however I want, because this thread doesn't specify the Civil War.

"Disregarding Terry's orders, Custer decided to attack before infantry and other support arrived. Although scouts warned that he was facing superior numbers (perhaps 2,500 warriors), Custer divided his regiment of 647 men, ordering Capt. Frederick Benteen's battalion to scout along a ridge to the left and sending Maj. Marcus Reno's battalion up the valley of the Little Bighorn to attack the Indian encampment."

Obviously he was over-confident and not a very good strategist. 2 Irregulars can take out 3 line regulars, but 1000 line regulars can take out 3000 irregulars. That is a rudiment in warfare and which, concentrated, disciplined fire will almost always win the battle at superior odds. You don't just split your forces into 3 against an opponent that has mobile tactics and numerical superiority. The 7th cavalry carried 1873 Springfield breach loaders that were inferior to the rapid fire weapons of the natives (bows, Spencer repeaters, Henry rifles, etc.) but they were more accurate and had longer ranges. They could fire up to 1000 yards, while the Henry rifles for example were useless beyond 300 yards. You dont split your forces in 3 in this situation, because those Springfields were specifically made to be used in a concentrated manner, not a loose formation, or else the latter rapid fire capabilities will win the day. Also, he was unreliable, because he would not follow orders.

 

[Seth Adam]

Well, for one thing, there's that whole "Don't bother giving me orders again, because I will not obey them" thing....

So you can't see the difference between following the orders of possibly the most hated general in American history, who, placed Wheeler (good cavalry commander but not as Forrest) over Forrest, despite Wheeler ordering Forrest to charge in a massacre at Fort Donelson. Hmmmm.... That ironically actually supports my claim, thanks.

Custer on the other hand did not obey orders that included ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RULES IN WARFARE!!!!! CAVALRY MUST ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE INFANTRY SUPPORT!!

 

[Seth Adam]

How about "Rommel is a myth"? As a host of the Forrest forum I invite you to do some reading before getting in too deep. Welcome to CivilWarTalk.

Oh and I have done plenty of reading, don't worry bout me mam

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

So you can't see the difference between following the orders of possibly the most hated general in American history, who, placed Wheeler (good cavalry commander but not as Forrest) over Forrest, despite Wheeler ordering Forrest to charge in a massacre at Fort Donelson. Hmmmm.... That ironically actually supports my claim, thanks.

Custer on the other hand did not obey orders that included ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RULES IN WARFARE!!!!! CAVALRY MUST ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE INFANTRY SUPPORT!!

My comments are nicely spelled out in post #226 of this thread. Read it. ***edit by Lnwlf***

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

WW II general Rommel would study Forrest's tactics of mobile warfare, and use to great effect in the North African theatre to earn him the name "Desert Fox."

How about "Rommel is a myth"? As a host of the Forrest forum I invite you to do some reading before getting in too deep. Welcome to CivilWarTalk.

Not to deviate from the topic, but if anyone following this thread is interested in the Rommel/Forrest legend . . . this is a good article:

Lawrence Wells. author of Rommel and the Rebel, comments on his novel and his interview with Manfred Rommel, son of the Desert Fox and Mayor of Stuttgart, Germany.

Second Guessing the Past — The Desert Fox and Mississippi

POSTED ON JULY 21, 2014WITH 0 COMMENTS

A historical investigation and commentary by Larry Wells.

The trouble with writing about a legend is that after awhile you start believing it.

Legends must be approached with caution. Each teller of a folktale embellishes, elaborates, embroiders until, kudzu-like, the legend creeps and entangles. Heroes become fabulous. New characters appear, phantoms who never were. A squad is a battalion, a ditch the Grand Canyon, a hill the continental divide. You know all this and yet…

Recently I traveled to west Tennessee and southern Germany tracking down a legend that I had written about. It kept coming at me in my sleep, long after my book was out of print.

The rest at:
http://hottytoddy.com/2014/07/21/second-guessing-the-past-the-desert-fox-and-mississippi/

 

[Seth Adam]

My comments are nicely spelled out in post #226 of this thread. Read it. ***edit by Lnwlf***

***edit by Lnwlf*** I already came up with a good piece of evidence he does well in the command structure. At the battle of Shiloh, Forrest did an excellent rear guard that saved the Confederate Army. I think he would have been praised in the Prussian army, and received a merit cross.

 

[Seth Adam]

Not to deviate from the topic, but if anyone following this thread is interested in the Rommel/Forrest legend . . . this is a good article:

Lawrence Wells. author of Rommel and the Rebel, comments on his novel and his interview with Manfred Rommel, son of the Desert Fox and Mayor of Stuttgart, Germany.

Second Guessing the Past — The Desert Fox and Mississippi

POSTED ON JULY 21, 2014WITH 0 COMMENTS
View attachment 108821
A historical investigation and commentary by Larry Wells.

The trouble with writing about a legend is that after awhile you start believing it.

Legends must be approached with caution. Each teller of a folktale embellishes, elaborates, embroiders until, kudzu-like, the legend creeps and entangles. Heroes become fabulous. New characters appear, phantoms who never were. A squad is a battalion, a ditch the Grand Canyon, a hill the continental divide. You know all this and yet…

Recently I traveled to west Tennessee and southern Germany tracking down a legend that I had written about. It kept coming at me in my sleep, long after my book was out of print.

The rest at
http://hottytoddy.com/2014/07/21/second-guessing-the-past-the-desert-fox-and-mississippi/

Good read, thanks

 

[rpkennedy]

So you can't see the difference between following the orders of possibly the most hated general in American history, who, placed Wheeler (good cavalry commander but not as Forrest) over Forrest, despite Wheeler ordering Forrest to charge in a massacre at Fort Donelson. Hmmmm.... That ironically actually supports my claim, thanks.

Custer on the other hand did not obey orders that included ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RULES IN WARFARE!!!!! CAVALRY MUST ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE INFANTRY SUPPORT!!

One obeys one's superior. That's how armies work.

Wheeler wasn't at Donelson.

Calling Joe Wheeler a good cavalry commander is an ill-informed opinion.

For being a rule, using the words "almost always" leaves an awful lot of wiggle room.

R

 

[GELongstreet]

And we go again ... didn´t we have this bickering on roughly the same issue and exactly the same arguments on another recent thread?

And another one? And another? And ... oh as said, here we go again.

And @Seth Adam , if you go back a page and read the first reply of @Eric Wittenberg to your comment. If you´d read anything yourself you should be able to see this simplified but spot-on described character trade in Forrest. And if you know anyting about military, principles like orders etc., you should be able to understand that this is more than just a little problem.

So can you now argue in peace again? There´s enough red ink on the board already ....