Custer Forrest or Custer

[cash]

Perhaps Forrest's knowing what he needed to be when he needed to be it is precisely why he was so successful and earned the scorn and fear of his enemies. But, you can't deny that his unit was called Forrest Cavalry Corps.

Was it? And so what if it was? I can call a pig a dog, but it's still got a curly tail and still gets made into bacon.

 

[cash]

John Buford on the first day of Gettysburg would be an example of this?

Yep, and there's no doubt Buford was an outstanding cavalryman. His reconnaissance and screening were exceptional.

 

[cash]

Agreed.

Let's get back to the topic of the OP . . . Who was the better general, Forrest or Custer ?

That's not the topic of the OP.

The topic of the OP is who was the better cavalry commander, Forrest or Custer.

Forrest wasn't a cavalry commander, so it's trying to make a comparison between two different entities.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

The topic of the OP is who was the better cavalry commander, Forrest or Custer.

OK.

Well let's get back to that then.

You made your point and I actually tend to agree with you.

 

[Bee]

@cash @diane I have a question borne of complete ignorance -- no agenda: Did Forrest become what he needed to become because the circumstances required it? Would a more traditional cavalry approach have been lesser or more effective in the battles he fought?

 

[cash]

OK.

Well let's get back that then.

You made your point and I actually tend to agree with you.

And I'm not saying Forrest was a bad general. Some people seem to think saying he wasn't a cavalry commander means I'm saying he wasn't any good.

Here's what cavalry did:

Scouting and Reconnaissance
Screening the army, and protecting its flanks and rear
Countering enemy cavalry
Counterattacking enemy infantry attacks
Charging infantry to shock them into retreat
Pursuing a retreating enemy
Covering the retreat of the army

Forrest's talents were elsewhere. That's not to say he didn't do any of these on occasion, but he was far more a mounted infantry commander. He did that well. That's where he was talented. So comparing Custer and Forrest makes no sense. It's like comparing a stock broker and a pipe fitter because the two rode a bus to work each day.

 

[chellers]

What exactly does being a forum host have to do with anything? Rudeness, and calling people names isn't appropriate in any case, and since you commented about the name calling yourself, it stands that you are in agreement, and we'll leave it at that.

To All:

It is the duty of the Forum Host to monitor and insure his/her thread adheres to CWT standards. Forum Hosts do not like having thread participants disregard CWT rules and get reported. The hosts of the Nathan B. Forrest Forum do an excellent job of maintaining their thread according to proper standards, and the Staff thanks them.

Consider this a warning.

Respectfully,

Chellers

 

[LoriAnn]

Some folks here think Forrest was a combination Einstein/Batman/Superman/Flash/Perry Mason/Incredible Hulk/Patton/Lee/Washington/Napoleon. He wasn't.

I like that Perry Mason made it in there!

 

[cash]

@cash @diane I have a question borne of complete ignorance -- no agenda: Did Forrest become what he needed to become because the circumstances required it? Would a more traditional cavalry approach have been lesser or more effective in the battles he fought?

Forrest was an instinctual soldier. More often than not, his instincts were right. He applied his instincts and common sense to the situation he faced and came up with nontraditional solutions.

Forrest also tended to not get along with superiors. He was best in independent command and as a raider. As such, it's appropriate to question what he actually accomplished. Much is made of Sherman saying Forrest had to be hunted down even if it bankrupted the treasury and cost a thousand (or was it ten thousand?) men. Yet Sherman quickly forgot about Forrest as he moved on Atlanta, so Forrest doesn't appear to have been more than a temporary irritation to Sherman. Again, that's not meant to say Forrest was no good, but rather the things he did, which he did well, didn't have the strategic impact that other actions had.

The best confederate cavalry commanders were Wade Hampton and JEB Stuart. The best Federal cavalry commanders were John Buford, David M. Gregg, and Wesley Merritt.

As a cavalryman, Forrest doesn't hold a candle to those five, because he wasn't a cavalryman.

Eric W. postulates an interesting match-up would be Buford and Forrest. I agree. Buford had been trained as a dragoon, so he excelled both as a cavalryman and as a mounted infantryman.

 

[Rio Bravo]

Says the guy who claimed if Forrest went to West Point he'd have a better GPA than Custer.

See to your own biased assumptions before you claim others have them.

Bearing in mind that Custer graduated last in his class,at West Point, in June 1861. Forrest would have.................
" Whenever I fit one of them West Pointers, I usually had him beat before he got his tune pitched " !!! LOL

 

[cash]

Bearing in mind that Custer graduated last in his class,at West Point, in June 1861. Forrest would have.................
" Whenever I fit one of them West Pointers, I usually had him beat before he got his tune pitched " !!! LOL

Custer was last in his class due to his conduct, not his grades.

 

[Borderruffian]

@cash @diane I have a question borne of complete ignorance -- no agenda: Did Forrest become what he needed to become because the circumstances required it? Would a more traditional cavalry approach have been lesser or more effective in the battles he fought?

Well NFB didn't really function in a cavalry role perse, his units were more like mounted rifles. Move to the engagement on horseback, dismount and fight. They weren't really armed as cavalry, having regular rifled muskets and sidearms, only the escort had sabers and carbines.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

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...)

Mosby on a larger scale, and completely useless in anything other than as an independent command.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Says the guy who claimed if Forrest went to West Point he'd have a better GPA than Custer.

See to your own biased assumptions before you claim others have them.

Post that quote by me, please.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

And I'm not saying Forrest was a bad general. Some people seem to think saying he wasn't a cavalry commander means I'm saying he wasn't any good.

Here's what cavalry did:

Scouting and Reconnaissance
Screening the army, and protecting its flanks and rear
Countering enemy cavalry
Counterattacking enemy infantry attacks
Charging infantry to shock them into retreat
Pursuing a retreating enemy
Covering the retreat of the army

Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check

According to the books I've read, he did all of those things. Plus independent ops. You're actually helping make the case that, not only was Forrest a better cavalry commander, he was a better overall general and, in a heads up fight, would have routed Custer, in my opinion.

By the way, how do you account for the fact that his corps was called a cavalry corps?

 

[cash]

Post that quote by me, please.

My apologies, that was someone else. But you've been defending that viewpoint.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check

According to the books I've read, he did all of those things. Plus independent ops. You're actually helping make the case that, not only was Forrest a better cavalry commander, he was a better overall general and, in a heads up fight, would have routed Custer, in my opinion.

By the way, how do you account for the fact that his corps was called a cavalry corps?

All of that assumes that comparing someone who spent most of the war as a brigade commander with someone who spent most of the war as a corps commander is a valid comparison. It doesn't even begin to be a valid comparison.

I account for the name of his command because it was the closest definition. He was not a cavalryman.

Having said that, I'm done. I'm sick to death of repeating myself about this topic ad nauseum. My thoughts are well documented, and have even been well documented here by Cash. The Forrest worshippers can go on worshipping Forrest. My analysis is valid and it stands.

Carry on.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

My apologies, that was someone else. But you've been defending that viewpoint.

Not at all. Post where I defended that viewpoint, please.

I'm disputing your assertion that Forrest was too stupid to compete with his contemporaries had he been given the same opportunities that they had.

My dad grew up during the Great Depression. When his dad died he dropped out of school at age 12 to help support his family. After serving 4 years in WWII he and his brother started a roofing company. Dad didn't have formal education, he was rough, a bit vulgar, somewhat of a hothead and wouldn't back down from a fight. He misspelled words and his writing was more of a scrawl. But he wasn't stupid (as he surprised me on many occasions when I was feeling all superior with my college education) and I'm sure that if not for circumstances he could have obtained a splendid education.

I guess when you imply that Forrest was too backwards and dumb to compete with the West Pointers you're also talking about my dad and many others like him.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

I account for the name of his command because it was the closest definition. He was not a cavalryman.

You may be on to something that the military eventually corrected.

He wasn't an infantryman. He wasn't an artilleryman. He wasn't administrative. He wasn't a quarter master. According to you and Cash he wasn't a cavalryman but the Army plugged him in to that because that was the closest thing to what he really was but had not yet been defined:

Spec Ops.

 

[cash]

Not at all. Post where I defended that viewpoint, please.

I'm disputing your assertion that Forrest was too stupid to compete with his contemporaries had he been given the same opportunities that they had.

I didn't make that assertion.