Custer Forrest or Custer

[Albert Sailhorst]

Sorry, I won't respond. My first post in this thread clearly states that I will not further stray from the topic as intended by the original poster.
Thank you.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Wittenberg is correct.

Forrest was not a traditional Cavalry Commander such as Murat or Ney under Napoleon.
He was not trained in anything remotely considered traditional 19th century cavalry tactics/roles.

However he knew horses and the importance of mobility.

If anything, I believe an argument can be made that Forrest may be the father of 20th century air cavalry:
http://www.aircav.com/cavrole.html

 

[diane]

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

You're right there - Forrest really didn't know what a cavalryman did as he was not a trained soldier. But he knew what a mounted force could do and, maybe because he wasn't trained, used it in unorthodox ways. He was actually pretty good with intelligence gathering and reconnaissance both but his commanders often - to their detriment usually - did not listen because he was just a civilian volunteer. An early example would be Shiloh, when he seemed to be the only guy who knew Buell was out and about. But it's certainly true he excelled at the lightning raid and was able to put the scare on somebody as hard to scare as Grant. (Sherman was as nervous as a chihuahua so it wasn't hard to do with him!) Custer, for his part, had all that West Point training and did fight by the book for the most part. You could say he was a straight arrow cavalryman. (Ooooh...pardon...)

 

[War Horse]

You're right there - Forrest really didn't know what a cavalryman did as he was not a trained soldier. But he knew what a mounted force could do and, maybe because he wasn't trained, used it in unorthodox ways. He was actually pretty good with intelligence gathering and reconnaissance both but his commanders often - to their detriment usually - did not listen because he was just a civilian volunteer. An early example would be Shiloh, when he seemed to be the only guy who knew Buell was out and about. But it's certainly true he excelled at the lightning raid and was able to put the scare on somebody as hard to scare as Grant. (Sherman was as nervous as a chihuahua so it wasn't hard to do with him!) Custer, for his part, had all that West Point training and did fight by the book for the most part. You could say he was a straight arrow cavalryman. (Ooooh...pardon...)

For all his lack of training his instincts were sure point on. If I'm not mistaken didn't they study some of his actions in later years at military schools?

 

[Bee]

You could say he was a straight arrow cavalryman. (Ooooh...pardon...)

Made my night -- no pardon required!

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

An easy one, as Forrest was not a cavalryman....

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

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!

Actually, no, he wasn't.

His men did not carry traditional cavalry weapons.

They did not serve any of the normal functions of cavalry--they did not scout or screen or do reconnaissance.

They were precisely what you deny they were: mounted infantry. Sorry.

 

[cash]

For all his lack of training his instincts were sure point on. If I'm not mistaken didn't they study some of his actions in later years at military schools?

Well, they study a lot of actions at military schools. They have a course on the Civil War, and perhaps one of Forrest's battles might be a part of that. But they don't have courses on Forrest's tactics.

We hear a lot of "Well, they still study General X's tactics at (insert military school). In my opinion, that statement has no meaning. It's meant to imply General X is so good that military officers specifically study his tactics. Well, that ain't necessarily so. You'll find courses on Napoleon because of his huge influence, but you won't find entire courses on Forrest, or on almost any other Civil War officer for that matter. They'll look at some significant battles, but a specific general's tactics? Not so much. Also, even if they look at a battle that included a particular general, what's that mean? Let's say that as part of the class on the Civil War, they look at Forrest's actions against Abel Streight. Well, just as much as they're studying Forrest's tactics there, they're also studying Streight's tactics. So someone enamored of Abel Streight could truthfully say, "Well, they're studying Streight's tactics at (insert military school). Sure--as what not to do.

So I would really stay away from "they study General X's tactics at (insert military school)" because it's ultimately misleading and meaningless.

 

[diane]

For all his lack of training his instincts were sure point on. If I'm not mistaken didn't they study some of his actions in later years at military schools?

I do know Brice's Crossroads is still studied along with Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign - they are both examples of what a smaller force can do against a much larger force. By the way, both Forrest and Stuart captured gunboats using cavalry, a most unique distinction - but Forrest got more boats than Stuart did! (I can just see them high fiving each other over that...) That is studied as well in the military histories.

 

[Michael W.]

Well, whatever you wanted to label him as, Cavalry, Mounted Infantry, Raider or Dirty Rotten Scoundrel, he was VERY good at it...

 

[diane]

Well, whatever you wanted to label him as, Cavalry, Mounted Infantry, Raider or Dirty Rotten Scoundrel, he was VERY good at it...

Well...I guess it's settled now!

 

[leftyhunter]

Who was a better cavalry commander

It is kind of hard to compare one general to another. Was Custer's mission the same as Forrest? Did Custer's command more or less men? Did he have better logistics? Did Custer's men have better training and weaponry plus better officers?
It is easier to compare say Lee to any commander of the AoP since they both had the same basic job description but still lots of other factors such as noted above to compare say an apple to an apple.
Leftyhunter

 

[Bee]

Well, whatever you wanted to label him as, Cavalry, Mounted Infantry, Raider or Dirty Rotten Scoundrel, .

THAT GUY

(did I get it right @Nathanb1 ?)

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

I'd say Custer over Forrest. Forrest was beaten more than once by a lesser general. And add to that Forrest's conduct against black soldiers.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

they both had the same basic job description but still lots of other factors such as noted above to compare say an apple to an apple.
Leftyhunter

Custer & Forrest had very different job descriptions.

The common denominator between the two is equine assets.

I'd put my money on Forrest if the two ever met in battle.

 

[Patrick H]

Who was better according to what standards? Honestly, I wouldn't know even if you spelled the parameters out for me. I think Forrest probably enjoys the bigger legend.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

I'd say Custer over Forrest. Forrest was beaten more than once by a lesser general.

Some would say that you can't see Forrest for the teepees.

 

[Michael W.]

Forrest after the war goes on to rebuild his fortune and business, Custer continues his quest for glory for another decade and gets himself and his command (including his two brothers Tom and Boston and a brother-in-law) killed at the Little Big Horn. Not that I'm picking sides, mind you, just stirring the pot on this little conversation......

 

[Michael W.]

Some would say that you can't see Forrest for the teepees.

LOL!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all week!!!

 

[diane]

I'd say Custer over Forrest. Forrest was beaten more than once by a lesser general. And add to that Forrest's conduct against black soldiers.

Milroy doesn't count! Now, getting your rear kicked by A J Smith or John Wilder, that's not embarrassing at all. Usually when Forrest got licked, as at Dover, it was somebody else's fight, as he rather famously stated at Tupelo. "Boys, this isn't my fight!"

We've got a whole forum on Ft Pillow - check it out, there's some good stuff there.

For commanders, as the OP says, I'd go with Forrest over Custer. Custer had a lot of problems with his men and command issues. Forrest's men wanted to fight under him even if they didn't particularly like him, and would try to get transferred back if they'd been taken away. One was a man who had lost an arm and a brother in a pre-war fight with Forrest but he wasn't going to serve under anybody else.