Custer Forrest or Custer

[cash]

I found this on Custer and the Little Bighorn:

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0417102-170705/unrestricted/Baker_thesis.pdf

 

[UCVRelics]

I'm going to leave it this way. NBF would have had a greater GPA at West Point than Custer.

 

[cash]

I'm going to leave it this way. NBF would have had a greater GPA at West Point than Custer.

Actually, not. The reason Custer was at the bottom of his class was his demerits. He would get demerits each year all the way up to the limit before being expelled, then clean up his act for the rest of the year.

Forrest would have shot somebody and gotten thrown out--provided he learned to read.

 

[diane]

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.

Forrest was all in for mobile strike force - that was what he did in his very first battle at Sacramento. That's an interesting note about Custer learning from Sheridan, who seemed to be taking notes from Forrest as well. That type of fighting was more Sheridan's cup of tea.

Yes, you're right on Custer's being a cavalryman from the get-go, just as Stuart was - they'd been trained to it from West Point. Ok! Looks like I've come around somewhat if not altogether and will dig up my books for some refreshers!

(Oh, don't worry about the blasphemy - we have a variety of hair shirts in the latest fashions for you to choose from in our penitent's closet! Something tells me you won't be in for a fitting any time soon, though...! )

 

[cash]

Forrest was all in for mobile strike force - that was what he did in his very first battle at Sacramento. That's an interesting note about Custer learning from Sheridan, who seemed to be taking notes from Forrest as well. That type of fighting was more Sheridan's cup of tea.

Yes, you're right on Custer's being a cavalryman from the get-go, just as Stuart was - they'd been trained to it from West Point. Ok! Looks like I've come around somewhat if not altogether and will dig up my books for some refreshers!

(Oh, don't worry about the blasphemy - we have a variety of hair shirts in the latest fashions for you to choose from in our penitent's closet! Something tells me you won't be in for a fitting any time soon, though...! )

Yeah, don't hold your breath.

Sheridan brought in Alfred T. A. Torbert as a division commander in the cavalry corps. The usual explanation is the two were friends. I think beyond being friends with Torbert, Sheridan wanted to infuse some infantry tactics into the cavalry, and he thought Torbert could do that.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being mounted infantry. Forrest did well in that role. But to try to compare Forrest with a true cavalryman and say which is the best cavalryman is trying to compare a walnut with a grapefruit. Not saying which is which.

 

[diane]

Actually, not. The reason Custer was at the bottom of his class was his demerits. He would get demerits each year all the way up to the limit before being expelled, then clean up his act for the rest of the year.

Forrest would have shot somebody and gotten thrown out--provided he learned to read.

I've read Custer did that deliberately so he'd flunk for engineering but make it to the cavalry, where he wanted to be. Don't know how true that is! But, gosh, Forrest could read...just not very fast... He wouldn't have shot anybody...that was Davis! Fortunately his friends talked him out of the duel...

 

[diane]

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.

Oh, if we're talking about Indian fighting and who would have been best at it - my vote would go to Forrest. He had some in his escort and scattered among his troops during the war, and his brother, William Hezekiah Forrest, was named after their Cherokee cousin, Hezekiah. The Little Bighorn may or may not have happened anyway, but the outcome might have been less lop-sided. For getting the Indians' supply trains, Sheridan can't be beat. That train was the buffalo.

 

[UCVRelics]

Actually, not. The reason Custer was at the bottom of his class was his demerits. He would get demerits each year all the way up to the limit before being expelled, then clean up his act for the rest of the year.

Forrest would have shot somebody and gotten thrown out--provided he learned to read.

I wasn't at the bottom of my class, but I can somewhat relate to that as I went to LWMA here in AL and spent many a sat afternoon "walking the flagpole" to work of demerits. But NBF wasn't a "POOR Ole Country Boy" When the CW started out

 

[cash]

I wasn't at the bottom of my class, but I can somewhat relate to that as I went to LWMA here in AL and spent many a sat afternoon "walking the flagpole" to work of demerits. But NBF wasn't a "POOR Ole Country Boy" When the CW started out

He also wasn't a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. He could barely read, barely write, and he would have been out of his depth at an engineering school.

 

[diane]

He also wasn't a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. He could barely read, barely write, and he would have been out of his depth at an engineering school.

Don't know about that! Forrest was really, really good at math and had a gift for it. One of his captains was talking about trigonometry and geometry and all that while demonstrating his artillery chops. Forrest had never heard of any of that and told the captain to drop by his tent with his math books. The captain gave Forrest some math lessons and left him with the book and problems to work out. When he came back several hours later, Forrest had not only completed the problems set out but had gone on quite a bit ahead - most of it correct. "It's kind of fun," he said sheepishly. He'd never have learned Shakespeare like that, though. He learned math because he could shoot straighter with it!

 

[cash]

Don't know about that! Forrest was really, really good at math and had a gift for it. One of his captains was talking about trigonometry and geometry and all that while demonstrating his artillery chops. Forrest had never heard of any of that and told the captain to drop by his tent with his math books. The captain gave Forrest some math lessons and left him with the book and problems to work out. When he came back several hours later, Forrest had not only completed the problems set out but had gone on quite a bit ahead - most of it correct. "It's kind of fun," he said sheepishly. He'd never have learned Shakespeare like that, though. He learned math because he could shoot straighter with it!

Engineering is heavy on calculus and science, which is more advanced than trig. He would also have to learn a foreign language, as well as constitutional principles.

 

[Bee]

I found this on Custer and the Little Bighorn:

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0417102-170705/unrestricted/Baker_thesis.pdf

A really interesting read starts on page 76:

The presence of a Gatling gun battery definitely would have changed the outcomeof the fight. If attached to Reno.s column, the guns likely would have destroyed the bulk of warriors on the valley floor and left Custer with little opposition as he charged down Medicine Tail Coulee or even further downstream. But, the Battle of the Little Bighorn would not have taken place at its time or location had Custer chosen to drag the batteryalong. Four condemned horses hauled the weapon systems, and they could not have kept up with the column during long, fast marches, nor could they have crossed rough ground without help. <as correctly pointed out earlier ​

The author's overall conclusion of The Battle of Little Bighorn:

To prove that Custer could have achieved a decisive victory is impossible, but one conclusion stands clear: he does not deserve the criticism directed at him by many historians for his actions at the Little Bighorn. Given his prior experiences, the information and perceptions that he had at every decisional juncture, and the actions he expected from his subordinate commanders, it is difficult to determine what he should have done differently. The Indians were strong that day, and they did not act in the manner that Custer, or many other officers, expected. In all, Custer died because of peculiar circumstances rather than poor judgment and tactics.
​

Thanks for the heads up on this thesis @cash --it provides a detailed retrospective of the battle.

​

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Ok! Looks like I've come around somewhat if not altogether

Maybe this will help you come back:

The author of this book would also be considered an expert:
The Campaigns Of General Nathan Bedford Forrest And Of Forrest's Cavalry--General Thomas Jordan (West Pointer and chief of staff to Generals Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Braxton Bragg)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/030680719X/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

I'd get you one of these but originals are a bit pricey:

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

I found this on Custer and the Little Bighorn:

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0417102-170705/unrestricted/Baker_thesis.pdf

From the above link:
"As we rushed them the white warriors dismounted to fire, but they did very poor shooting,"

It would appear from an eyewitness account that Custer was (((drum roll))) mounted infantry!

 

[M Anthony Young]

Of the two I prefer Buford!

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

On the union side there was better then Custer. Custer is only really famous due to circumstances of his death

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Plenty of boy generals during the war accomplished what Custer did

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Of the two I prefer Buford!

You mean Bedford?

 

[diane]

Maybe this will help you come back:

The author of this book would also be considered an expert:
The Campaigns Of General Nathan Bedford Forrest And Of Forrest's Cavalry--General Thomas Jordan (West Pointer and chief of staff to Generals Beauregard, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Braxton Bragg)
https://www.amazon.com/Campaigns-General-Bedford-Forrest-Forrests/dp/030680719X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469180877&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Campaigns+Of+General+Nathan+Bedford+Forrest+And+Of+Forrest's+Cavalry

I'd get you one of these but originals are a bit pricey:

Oh, I'm not leaving the camp! Should clarify, though. Cash makes a good point about Forrest operating as mounted infantry but I can't get around his clear usefulness as traditional cavalry or not consider him a cavalryman. He was the first to really use a strike force - his escort was remarkable and unlike any other escort - and he did scout, screen and reconnoiter as he was supposed to. His superiors often did not value him and often ignored him so...he often went off on his own hook. The biggest flaw in his soldiering was that he had not gotten the training that would teach him to suffer fools gladly...which he did not! The Union cavalry was undergoing some significant changes, though, and was more ready (and able) to change for the better than the Confederate, who maintained tradition, the cavalier style. Jeb Stuart was absolutely swords n roses all the way and he was very, very good. It was still a glorious occupation. Forrest was unique in his practical got-a-job-to-do approach. He saw nothing romantic about war, just a bad job someone had to do - and he was superb at it. Not superb at taking orders from dummies, though!

One thing I haven't seen noted about Custer is what he represented - the post-Civil War US cavalry. The war had really cleaned out stodgy old timers, moss-backed traditionalists and timid commanders - that made room for men like Grant to come forward and they were young. Grant doesn't get enough credit for letting his commanders think outside the box as well as himself. Sheridan, for example - Grant let him have his head many times, maybe from favoritism but also to see what he had in mind. You think you can do it, then go for it! Technology made huge changes, and so on. The heyday of the US cavalry was the Plains Wars but the last US cavalry charge - with horses - was in the Philippines during WWII.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Engineering is heavy on calculus and science, which is more advanced than trig. He would also have to learn a foreign language, as well as constitutional principles.

Are you suggesting that Forrest was too dumb to learn? Your bias is starting to wander into wild speculation and expose a bit of snobbishness. Yes, Forrest was rough and lacked formal education but, based on his accomplishments, you have to cross a mighty rickety and narrow bridge to imply that he could not have competed intellectually with his contemporaries at West Point had he been given the same childhood opportunities that they had.