Forrest

[gem]

Was Forrest the strongest general in the war. How does he compare to grant or lee?

 

[tmh10]

I think that Forrest was good at what he did, but would not have been able to take on the scope of dealing with large armies. That is where the West Point education had the advantage. Grant and Lee had to deal with everything from supply to the coordination of several different matters including people and politics.

 

[dvrmte]

Forrest would compare more easily with soldiers such as Wade Hampton and John B. Gordon since they all had no formal military training.

Wade Hampton rose to the same rank as Forrest and commanded infantry as well as cavalry. Was he as good as Forrest? In my opinion, they were pretty close but the nod goes to Hampton because he was from South Carolina.

Gordon never officially made Lt. General but he did lead a corps near the end of the War. He never led cavalry either. If I had an army I'd pick him to lead a division, he knew the game.

 

[tmh10]

Forrest would compare more easily with soldiers such as Wade Hampton and John B. Gordon since they all had no formal military training.

Wade Hampton rose to the same rank as Forrest and commanded infantry as well as cavalry. Was he as good as Forrest? In my opinion, they were pretty close but the nod goes to Hampton because he was from South Carolina.

Gordon never officially made Lt. General but he did lead a corps near the end of the War. He never led cavalry either. If I had an army I'd pick him to lead a division, he knew the game.

Just want to be sure on your response, dvrmte. Did you mean Forrest to lead a division or Hampton or Gordon? The question was about Forrest so I was just wanting to be clear on your opinion. Thanks Ted.

 

[dvrmte]

Just want to be sure on your response, dvrmte. Did you mean Forrest to lead a division or Hampton or Gordon? The question was about Forrest so I was just wanting to be clear on your opinion. Thanks Ted.

I meant Gordon in that case. However, I'd use each where their abilities were most proven. By the time of JEB Stuart's death, I think Hampton was his near equal. So I'd have confidence in Hampton leading my cavalry. And Forrest, I'd use him for deep penetrating raids or counter-invasions, as Stonewall Jackson envisioned. Not that he considered Forrest for it but Forrest did seem to fit that type duty.

 

[tmh10]

I meant Gordon in that case. However, I'd use each where their abilities were most proven. By the time of JEB Stuart's death, I think Hampton was his near equal. So I'd have confidence in Hampton leading my cavalry. And Forrest, I'd use him for deep penetrating raids or counter-invasions, as Stonewall Jackson envisioned. Not that he considered Forrest for it but Forrest did seem to fit that type duty.

Yes, I agree with you on that. My thinking on Forrest as a General with the duties of Grant or Lee would be that he would be over his head. There are all the mundane things that they had to deal with that made their army effective that are overlooked but very important. McClellen was very good at the organization of the army, but lacking as a battlefield commander. Grant and Lee were good at both. I think their West Point training helped in that area, where Forrest did not have that advantage. Thanks Ted

 

[Jon G.]

I think that Forrest was good at what he did, but would not have been able to take on the scope of dealing with large armies. That is where the West Point education had the advantage. Grant and Lee had to deal with everything from supply to the coordination of several different matters including people and politics.

I agree that he was good, no great,but was the lack of a West Point education that much of a disadvantage to someone as gifted as Forrest? Just as today, some folks are gifted with the skills to do great things. Lots of incompetents did OK with the book learning but flops when it came to getting the job done. Forrest got things done and I really feel that he could have handled a larger army......maybe not the army way but his way.

I actually think that the really great leaders and generals on both sides weren't great because of their educations necessarily but something inside them that can't be taught.

Coincidently they are also my CW heroes.

Just my opinion.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The higher you go up the echelons, the more generalship requires management as well as leadership... just being a good combat leader isn't enough. The skill set is a bit different and the requirements for staff-work expand enormously. It doesn't mean Forrest would automatically have failed at top command, but he definitely had strikes against him in that regard, compared to formally-trained officers. (I suppose it could have worked if he had a strong number-two man with great organizational/administrative skills to act as chief of staff.)

 

[diane]

One thing I believe is essential but overlooked nearly always when mentioning these three men for higher positions is the fact that they were all planters. Understanding the way a plantation worked, how big and complicated these places were - they were like self-sufficient little villages. Out here, a rancher with a good size spread could raise an army of hands and assorted people connected with the ranch - range wars! There were a lot of logistics and so forth to be learned and used running one of these places - Hampton had three or four of them. They knew a lot about river transportation, railroads, managing large numbers of people and so on. In each case, the more responsibility they got, the better they seemed to do. Forrest commanded a corps at Chickamauga and did well with it, for example. A P Hill and John Hood, however, should have been left division commanders - higher command didn't agree with them! And they weren't planters, either.

 

[EricAJacobson]

Was Forrest the strongest general in the war. How does he compare to grant or lee?

No. And he does not compare to either. Both were far above and beyond Forrest's capabilities.

 

[ole]

Forrest is revered today for what he did best: search and destroy. His reputation was such that Grant, during his advance on Vicksburg, and Sherman, during his advance on Atlanta, made sure he was otherwise occupied. He subsisted his troops largely with provender from locals and garrisons he forced to surrender.

He travelled light and fast, and couldn't be bothered with the logistical planning it takes to supply multiple thousands of troops marching hundreds of miles away from a source of supply.

When functioning as cavalry attached to an army, his performance was often less than stellar. His shining moment had to be when he escorted Hood's smashed army home from Nashville.

As feared and respected as he was, he cannot be considered the equal of generals who responsible for the care and maintenance of divisions, corps, and armies.

 

[1SGDan]

Was Forrest the strongest general in the war.

NO!

How does he compare to grant or lee?

Not at all.

 

[johan_steele]

Forrest was a natural master of the small unit raid, though some of his raids were rather large he was no General of armies. He could command thousands but not tens of thousands.

IMO Forrest & Hampton were two of the best available to the CS. They both commanded at a level where personal elan made a difference and they both led from the front gaining the trust, admiration and loyalty of their men as well as the respect of their enemies.

IMO it isn't fair to try to compare a Forrest to a Grant or Lee as they commanded at a different level.

 

[Nathanb1]

Forrest is revered today for what he did best: search and destroy. His reputation was such that Grant, during his advance on Vicksburg, and Sherman, during his advance on Atlanta, made sure he was otherwise occupied. He subsisted his troops largely with provender from locals and garrisons he forced to surrender.

He travelled light and fast, and couldn't be bothered with the logistical planning it takes to supply multiple thousands of troops marching hundreds of miles away from a source of supply.

When functioning as cavalry attached to an army, his performance was often less than stellar. His shining moment had to be when he escorted Hood's smashed army home from Nashville.

As feared and respected as he was, he cannot be considered the equal of generals who responsible for the care and maintenance of divisions, corps, and armies.

What Ole said. In spades. He didn't play well with others at times. When he did, he was brilliant. Generally, on his own hook with his own decision making, he did well. Not so good when in a snit--such as under Bragg's command. (And I do not blame him for the snit). But he was no Grant or Lee. What he needed was Taylor in good health, IMO. They were made for each other. Just too little, too late.

 

[diane]

I calculate Forrest's ability as being in the same category as Jeb Stuart. Stuart was good enough the one time he was in command of a corps - as was Forrest - but he was no Lee! (And, to be fair, I would calculate that Sherman was no Grant.) Forrest was exactly where he should have been but there are rather tantalizing indications that had he had more military training and experience he might well have been in Lee's league. For himself, though, he preferred being on his own hook - quite often he was the only one who understood the whole situation and knew what to do about it. Fort Donelson springs to mind!

 

[Lee]

I hold Forrest in very high regard. Having said that Forrest never commanded a large Army and the actions, tactics, logistics, needs, and the speed of a large army IMO really doesn't fit well with Forrest's unique talents and strong points. I can't even imagine Forrest accompanied by staff officers as he moved about from one Corps to another. I just read about a raid that had Forrest crossing a river where all the men onboard a boat or raft including Forrest were rowing, poling, or paddling save for one officer and Forrest asked the officer why he wasn't helping. The officer in so many words made the mistake of telling Forrest he was an officer and wasn't required to do such work. Forrest listened but didn't reply instead he pushed the officer overboard then extended an oar or pole so the officer could climb back aboard.

In short I believe Forrest was at the top of his game and virtually peerless. Of course we can only speculate as to how Forrest would have adapted to or possibly failed commanding a large Army. I believe a better question would be who on either side could accomplish as much as Forrest did with what he had to fight with?

 

[Roland]

William T Sherman " After all, I think Forrest was the most remarkable man our Civil War produced on either side." High praise from someone he fought against.

 

[Lee]

William T Sherman " After all, I think Forrest was the most remarkable man our Civil War produced on either side." High praise from someone he fought against.

This is true. Praise from an adversary pretty much says it all. In the Spanish American War Forrest pondered raising a unit to fight in Cuba and Sherman endorsed his idea. I know Wheeler fought there along with one of the Lee's but Forrest never made it to Cuba to my knowledge.

 

[Nathanb1]

This is true. Praise from an adversary pretty much says it all. In the Spanish American War Forrest pondered raising a unit to fight in Cuba and Sherman endorsed his idea. I know Wheeler fought there along with one of the Lee's but Forrest never made it to Cuba to my knowledge.

Because, good as he was, he'd been dead since 1877 and the Spanish American War was in 1898, I would rethink that statement. Bingo.

 

[cash]

Because, good as he was, he'd been dead since 1877 and the Spanish American War was in 1898, I would rethink that statement. Bingo.

It was during a seance.