Custer Forrest or Custer

[cash]

I get the tank deal. Just never thought of the issue of the horse. It will be an interesting thread to read over I think. A lot easier than the cause of the war. Well, Maybe not as you said. We will see. Seems your knowledge and opinion base is extremely broad. Of course you have been at it a long time. Your not glued to the chair or a hostage in your home, are you??

Mrs. Cash lets me out to wander around battlefields occasionally.

 

[Nathanb1]

Mrs. Cash lets me out to wander around battlefields occasionally.

Neal escapes, too. We're gonna put a chip in his ear.

 

[cash]

Neal escapes, too. We're gonna put a chip in his ear.

I suspect Mrs. Cash implanted a chip while I was asleep awhile back.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

The horse, by the way, is a means of travel. You put infantry on a horse to get them to the battlefield and then they fight as infantry, they're not cavalry, just as if you put infantry on a bunch of tanks to give them a ride and they aren't in the tank corps.

I respectfully disagree with that logic. If Forrest and his men were riding into battle on wagons then you would have a valid argument but they did indeed ride on individual horses and fought engagements mounted.

Also, from wiki: Infantry who moved on horseback, but dismounted to fight on foot, were known in the 17th and early 18th centuries as dragoons, a class of mounted infantry which later evolved into cavalry proper while retaining their historic title.

 

[cash]

I respectfully disagree with that logic. If Forrest and his men were riding into battle on wagons then you would have a valid argument but they did indeed ride on individual horses and fought engagements mounted.

Also, from wiki: Infantry who moved on horseback, but dismounted to fight on foot, were known in the 17th and early 18th centuries as dragoons, a class of mounted infantry which later evolved into cavalry proper while retaining their historic title.

Cavalry perform various functions, which Forrest did not do. Forrest and his men were mounted infantry, not cavalry.

 

[diane]

Cavalry perform various functions, which Forrest did not do. Forrest and his men were mounted infantry, not cavalry.

Ok, I'll bite! What cavalry functions did Forrest not do? I can't think of any he didn't perform. There's certain battles and situations where he didn't shine at some of them, and didn't do some of them, but overall it seems he did them all.

 

[48th Miss.]

Just jumping in for a second but did Forrest perform no other functions or just perform less or just perform them poorly. I have no clue as I have never read on the man and have not gotten to the before mentioned threads yet.

Oops my phone just updated to reflect dianes post, disregard

 

[cash]

Ok, I'll bite! What cavalry functions did Forrest not do? I can't think of any he didn't perform. There's certain battles and situations where he didn't shine at some of them, and didn't do some of them, but overall it seems he did them all.

Again, I'll point you to the expert.

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

 

[roberts]

Here is an opinion from another expert -

"He ordered Forrest (about the ablest cavalry general in the South) north for this purpose...."

also

"Forrest had about 4,000 cavalry with him, composed of thoroughly well-disciplined men, who under so able a leader were very effective. Smith's command was nearly double that of Forrest, but not equal man to man..."

U S Grant from his Memoirs

& another expert....

"I regard N B Forrest as one of the most extraordinary men developed by our civil war, and were it left to me, in the event of war requiring cavalry, I would unhesitatingly accept his services and give him a prominent place. "

W T Sherman, 1873

 

[diane]

Again, I'll point you to the expert.

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

Very cool - pretty well outgunned with that. However... I asked you, not Mr Wittenberg! Just want to know what you yourself think Forrest didn't do.

 

[cash]

Very cool - pretty well outgunned with that. However... I asked you, not Mr Wittenberg! Just want to know what you yourself think Forrest didn't do.

He didn't scout, screen, or perform reconnaissance--at least not in a competent manner, and not consistently. He may have tried each a few times, but the cavalry role wasn't his forte and thus he wasn't cavalry. This is not to say he wasn't a good soldier. He just wasn't a cavalryman.

 

[diane]

He didn't scout, screen, or perform reconnaissance--at least not in a competent manner, and not consistently. He may have tried each a few times, but the cavalry role wasn't his forte and thus he wasn't cavalry. This is not to say he wasn't a good soldier. He just wasn't a cavalryman.

Hmm. I'm kind of hard pressed to count him out as a cavalryman when that's what his soldiering was! He did all those things - mostly for his own operations, true. The problem, as I see it, was his superiors kept brushing him off or ignoring him largely because he was not West Point and not educated at all. Just a hillbilly volunteer. He proved to be better than most and it shifted a little, especially with Bragg and his notorious jealousy/insecurity. With him it was the classic: if he looks bad, I look better!

What I'm wondering, since you acknowledge he had talent enough to be reckoned a good soldier, do you think superiors like Bragg might have contributed to the deficiencies you suggest rather than Forrest's lacking ability/temperament?

 

[dlofting]

If you read "Failure in the Saddle" by David Powell you get an idea of where Forrest and Wheeler were remiss in scouting and screening for Bragg's army. That said, my impression was that by the end of the Chickamauga campaign Forrest was doing a much better job of it than he was at the beginning. My opinion then, is that he was quite capable of learning what was required of cavalry attached to an army, and performing that job adequately, if that was what was required of him.

 

[cash]

Hmm. I'm kind of hard pressed to count him out as a cavalryman when that's what his soldiering was! He did all those things - mostly for his own operations, true. The problem, as I see it, was his superiors kept brushing him off or ignoring him largely because he was not West Point and not educated at all. Just a hillbilly volunteer. He proved to be better than most and it shifted a little, especially with Bragg and his notorious jealousy/insecurity. With him it was the classic: if he looks bad, I look better!

What I'm wondering, since you acknowledge he had talent enough to be reckoned a good soldier, do you think superiors like Bragg might have contributed to the deficiencies you suggest rather than Forrest's lacking ability/temperament?

No, I don't. Bragg makes for a convenient excuse, but a cavalryman works for the army commander and is to provide information the army commander needs to that commander. What information did Forrest give to his commanders? Where did he make a difference in the role of a cavalryman?

He was an excellent mounted infantryman, but he wasn't a cavalryman. Again, that's not a knock on him. Cavalry just wasn't what he did.

 

[UCVRelics]

No, Forrest is NOT worshiped on this site by no means. Just imagine is NBF had a few Gatling. NBF would have NEVER put his troops in the kind of position that Custer did.

 

[diane]

No, I don't. Bragg makes for a convenient excuse, but a cavalryman works for the army commander and is to provide information the army commander needs to that commander. What information did Forrest give to his commanders? Where did he make a difference in the role of a cavalryman?

He was an excellent mounted infantryman, but he wasn't a cavalryman. Again, that's not a knock on him. Cavalry just wasn't what he did.

I have to say I'm becoming more convinced on the mounted infantry but not quite there yet! Just without looking, he had the right information at Shiloh but Hardee told him to go back to sleep, and he did a great job on Hood's retreat from Nashville - those two examples are definitely cavalry. In fact, he outdoes Custer there! One could ask the same questions about Custer and also ask if he was not mounted infantry, too.

 

[cash]

No, Forrest is NOT worshiped on this site by no means. Just imagine is NBF had a few Gatling. NBF would have NEVER put his troops in the kind of position that Custer did.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Remember, the first step to recovery is to admit the problem.

 

[UCVRelics]

I have to say I'm becoming more convinced on the mounted infantry but not quite there yet! Just without looking, he had the right information at Shiloh but Hardee told him to go back to sleep, and he did a great job on Hood's retreat from Nashville - those two examples are definitely cavalry. In fact, he outdoes Custer there! One could ask the same questions about Custer and also ask if he was not mounted infantry, too.

I really don't think Custer could have provided his troops on raiding Sioux supply trains as NBF. In the late years of the CW cavalry did a whole lot more than just recon. Many CS Cav Officers in the late years were out for recruits, provisions, arms, horses and the best targets were the enemy supply trains, which the Indians never had. Apples & Oranges. But if NBF had captured a few Gatlings, Just Saying.

 

[cash]

I have to say I'm becoming more convinced on the mounted infantry but not quite there yet! Just without looking, he had the right information at Shiloh but Hardee told him to go back to sleep, and he did a great job on Hood's retreat from Nashville - those two examples are definitely cavalry. In fact, he outdoes Custer there! One could ask the same questions about Custer and also ask if he was not mounted infantry, too.

I realize it's considered blasphemous to say Forrest wasn't perfect in all ways, but no, he didn't outdo Custer.

When Sheridan took charge of the Army of the Potomac's cavalry, he began to transform that cavalry into more of a mounted infantry arm. He envisioned a mobile strike force instead of the traditional cavalry role. That's why Sheridan also doesn't fit the definition of cavalry. He wanted the infantry to do their own reconnaissance, for example. Custer under Sheridan has to be looked at within that context. Custer outside of Sheridan, though, did an admirable job of screening the Army of the Potomac during the Gettysburg Campaign, keeping JEB Stuart and his cavalry from penetrating that screen once he was placed in brigade command. Prior to that he performed reconnaissance during the Peninsula campaign.

Now, I'm not saying Custer was the greatest of all cavalrymen, but he was a cavalryman from the beginning.

 

[diane]

If you read "Failure in the Saddle" by David Powell you get an idea of where Forrest and Wheeler were remiss in scouting and screening for Bragg's army. That said, my impression was that by the end of the Chickamauga campaign Forrest was doing a much better job of it than he was at the beginning. My opinion then, is that he was quite capable of learning what was required of cavalry attached to an army, and performing that job adequately, if that was what was required of him.

That was my feeling - he was a better commander after Chickamauga. He had a very different type of command there, too, and it was interesting to see what he did with it. Nobody sparkled in that battle, though! Forrest was a very quick and thorough pupil - he had to know why, what for and how and he would learn.