General Nathan Bedford Forrest Commander of the Confederate Army of Tennessee

I don't think N B Forrest would have been competent enough or even handed enough for command of an army group. That requires a special set of skills I don't think he possessed. I do think he may have been a competent corps commander, under a good army commander. Just my two cents worth.

See comment on Taylor. If Taylor is well enough, and if it's early enough in the war for his men and horses to not be worn out.
 
I don't think N B Forrest would have been competent enough or even handed enough for command of an army group. That requires a special set of skills I don't think he possessed. I do think he may have been a competent corps commander, under a good army commander. Just my two cents worth.


The entire command structure from senor to junior for both sides was on the job training during the ACW. There was no time to study, no time to get experience and rise in the ranks. There was only jump in and try and for many die.
 
My father always used to say that opinions are like *******s. Everybody has one. :byebye:

So, you think an insubordinate illiterate amateur could have done better than the professionals? Wow. That's staggering in its naiveté.

Eric, you seem to have forgotten that Forrest could do anything. In fact, he once defeated an entire of regiment of Federal cavalry simply by moving his hand like a Jedi master. He was also brilliant, kind, benevolent and handsome. He also rescued puppies and kittens. Now I shall flip back to reality.....
 
:bounce: Wow! I'm surprised this hasn't gotten ugly yet!

I might add that when Forrest played the role of conventional cavalryman he was no better than anyone else. I repeat - no one. Stuart and Hampton were far his superiors, as was Hatch on the other side. Forrest made his name being a raider, or working independently.
 
I might add that when Forrest played the role of conventional cavalryman he was no better than anyone else. I repeat - no one. Stuart and Hampton were far his superiors, as was Hatch on the other side. Forrest made his name being a raider, or working independently.

Agreed completely. All of these are the reasons why I don't consider Forrest to be a cavalryman. He had no talent at all for those roles and was largely completely useless unless in some sort of an independent command.
 
It would have been interesting to see Nathan Bedford Forrest against George Armstrong Custer in a cavalry skirmish.:cannon::throwball::throwball:

Not particularly. Custer was a classic hussar, who would have wanted to use tactics that Forrest didn't know or understand in the form of mounted fighting. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

The one that would have interested me would have been John Buford vs. Forrest. That's in part because Buford's first cousin Abraham Buford was one of Forrest's division commanders, but also because as a dragoon, Buford was equally adept at fighting mounted and dismounted, and I daresay that his track record indicates that he was a better tactician. Now, THAT would have been an interesting fight.

And had Buford not fallen ill with the typhoid fever that took his life in December 1863, it likely would have happened, as Buford was going to assume command of the Army of the Cumberland's Cavalry Corps about the time that he left the army with his fatal illness.
 
:bounce: Wow! I'm surprised this hasn't gotten ugly yet!

Well, let's start with why Forrest could never have become commander of the Army of Tennessee in the first place. While both North and South had pronounced biases against those who hadn't been to West Point taking high command positions, the South's was much stronger. Forrest was very much a victim of that prejudice, combined with the South's class prejudices against a rags-to-riches, semi-literate slave dealer.

To that, we have to add that Forrest came from the cavalry, an arm of the service that didn't produce army commanders. Any such example of a man coming from cavalry to lead a combined arms field army on either side is invariably a man who started in infantry, went over to the cavalry, and then to the field command. They weren't all horse, and Forrest was.

It took Forrest almost the entire war to struggle up to the point of becoming a lieutenant general, and that entirely on merit. The idea that Davis or anyone would have vaulted him over the heads of so many other more senior generals, all of whom were more politically and socially acceptable, is ludicrous. It was just out and out impossible.

Another thing to think about is that Forrest's record shows the largest forces he led into battle were the size of large divisions/small corps... I'd need to look up the specific numbers, but my guess is he never had charge of a force much bigger than 10,000 effectives, and often less. I think Forrest would get the hang of running an infantry force, because he fought as dismounted infantry anyway, but he might not shift well into running a large field army.

In my mind, a more plausible scenario (and therefore more interesting) might go like this... let's say Bragg picked Forrest to run his cavalry instead of Joe Wheeler. Later on, Bragg wants to get rid of his insubordinate, but highly effective cavalry commander, so Forrest is sent to take charge of the MS and AL department much as Polk was. What might Forrest have done with a mixed force of about 20,000 infantry and cavalry from there? Starting in winter 1863?

It's still most unlikely, but not as much as the idea of Forrest taking over the AoT.

Good analysis. Forrest himself seemed to feel he was not as useful out of the cavalry he led so well. He did well at Chickamauga, where he commanded a corps, and he did well as Lt General - cavalry. He was not so insubordinate as it may seem and, given more responsibility, seemed to master what he needed to do instinctively. Being a natural leader, he relished more as that gave him more headway to use his own lights. Too many times he was right when his superiors were wrong for it to be chance. He taught himself geometry and trigonometry during the war, with surprisingly good results - a very quick study. It's possible the man was a genuine genius, not just militarily. If he'd had a few more opportunities at a younger age, who knows!

Forrest could have managed a large force but his comfort zone was with the cavalry in smaller parcels. It's like Stonewall Jackson taking Lee's place. Jackson was a great commander - where he was!
 
He was not so insubordinate as it may seem and, given more responsibility, seemed to master what he needed to do instinctively.

Telling one commanding officer, "If you were half a man, I would slap your jowls" and another that he would not obey his orders is not "so insubordinate as it may seem"???? Say what????

Let's examine this apologia, shall we?

Armies rely upon discipline. In this context, discipline means that subordinate officers OBEY the lawful orders of their superior officers. Without that discipline, an army is chaos. It also means that an insubordinate junior officer, no matter how talented, is entirely useless to the army if he cannot be relief upon to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer. It's kind of like someone claiming to be a little pregnant. Either you're pregnant or you aren't. Either someone is insubordinate or not. There is no degree of insubordination that excuses being a "little bit insubordinate." Armies don't work that way.

And, as another example, I give you Phil Sheridan, whose insubordination--and Grant's embracing of it--meant that the Army of the Potomac would be left without its Cavalry Corps for most of the Overland Campaign in 1864 because Sheridan could not serve under Meade's command. And Grant's poor judgment in embracing that insubordination meant that his army was nearly destroyed twice by his blundering into Confederate positions without cavalry screens in his front.

Mr. Forrest is fortunate he was not in the Prussian army. Such conduct would have gotten him a very quick and very quiet bullet in his brain for being insubordinate.
 
Telling one commanding officer, "If you were half a man, I would slap your jowels" and another that he would not obey his orders is not "so insubordinate as it may seem"???? Say what????

Let's examine this apologia, shall we?

Armies rely upon discipline. In this context, discipline means that subordinate officers OBEY the lawful orders of their superior officers. Without that discipline, an army is chaos. It also means that an insubordinate junior officer, no matter how talented, is entirely useless to the army if he cannot be relief upon to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer.

And, as another example, I give you Phil Sheridan, whose insubordination--and Grant's embracing of it--meant that the Army of the Potomac would be left without its Cavalry Corps for most of the Overland Campaign in 1864 because Sheridan could not serve under Meade's command. And Grant's poor judgment in embracing that insubordination meant that his army was nearly destroyed twice by his blundering into Confederate positions without cavalry screens in his front.

Mr. Forrest is fortunate he was not in the Prussian army. Such conduct would have gotten him a very quick and very quite bullet in his brain for being insubordinate.

Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't. We seem to think that's an apocryphal story. Entertaining, but....meh. The fact that no one, including Bragg, seems to have wanted to put him under arrest, etc. makes me think he was being fairly effective and it encouraged a laissez-faire attitude. :smile: Luckily for Hood, Forrest was around to save his bacon crossing the Duck River. :smile:
 
Telling one commanding officer, "If you were half a man, I would slap your jowls" and another that he would not obey his orders is not "so insubordinate as it may seem"???? Say what????

Let's examine this apologia, shall we?

Armies rely upon discipline. In this context, discipline means that subordinate officers OBEY the lawful orders of their superior officers. Without that discipline, an army is chaos. It also means that an insubordinate junior officer, no matter how talented, is entirely useless to the army if he cannot be relief upon to obey the lawful orders of his superior officer. It's kind of like someone claiming to be a little pregnant. Either someone is insubordinate or not. There is no degree of insubordination that excuses being a "little bit insubordinate." Armies don't work that way.

And, as another example, I give you Phil Sheridan, whose insubordination--and Grant's embracing of it--meant that the Army of the Potomac would be left without its Cavalry Corps for most of the Overland Campaign in 1864 because Sheridan could not serve under Meade's command. And Grant's poor judgment in embracing that insubordination meant that his army was nearly destroyed twice by his blundering into Confederate positions without cavalry screens in his front.

Mr. Forrest is fortunate he was not in the Prussian army. Such conduct would have gotten him a very quick and very quite bullet in his brain for being insubordinate.

:D Oh, I didn't say he wasn't insubordinate, just not as much as it seems. You missed his disobeying Hood's orders to shorten the mule teams at Nashville. He just flat out told the quartermaster to quit telling him to do it, the order would not be obeyed and if he (the quartermaster) said anything more he'd tie his legs around his neck and choke him to death with his own shinbones! BUT, that said, I have to disagree with you most respectfully. Didn't he obey a lot of orders he'd druther have not obeyed? Didn't threaten to slap anybody else's jowls - just Bragg's. It was a gamble - he knew Bragg wanted rid of him as much as he wanted rid of Bragg and Bragg was the sort of guy to take his insubordination as an opportunity. Win-win! (Although Forrest was judging this gamble based on his assessment of Bragg as a coward - Forrest was wrong there.)

You're certainly right that armies don't tolerate insubordination and Forrest wouldn't have liked the Prussians. (Or...maybe he would have!) At any rate, Forrest was not regular army from the get-go - he was one of the many volunteer civilians with enough money to raise and equip soldiers. That's why the governor of Tennessee contacted him. He also turned out to be very effective in his theater of the war. That's why his superiors often looked the other way. His enemies thought he was effective, too.
 
He did well at Chickamauga, where he commanded a corps, and he did well as Lt General - cavalry.

I know a couple of recent authors who would disagree with the Chickamauga assessment entirely. They show pretty convincingly that Wheeler and Forrest were almost abysmal in Sept 1863. As a Lt Gen. he really didn't do much except get his tail whipped by Wilson.
 
Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't. We seem to think that's an apocryphal story. Entertaining, but....meh. The fact that no one, including Bragg, seems to have wanted to put him under arrest, etc. makes me think he was being fairly effective and it encouraged a laissez-faire attitude. :smile: Luckily for Hood, Forrest was around to save his bacon crossing the Duck River. :smile:

Technically Forrest didn't help much at the Duck (or Rutherford Creek, which is about as wide). It was Lee's Corps that was the rearguard all the way from Nashville to Columbia. That fact alone chafed plenty of Lee's guys, who saw the Forrest legend grow and they were none too happy with him getting credit for "saving the army."
 
Forrest had two shots at a combined arms command and failed miserably at both. The first was at Murfreesboro during the Hood campaign. He ended up being routed and shooting at his own troops. The second was at Selma. While late in the war and the odds heavily stacked against him he nonetheless failed. There is nothing abut these two examples that recommended him for higher command.
 
Last edited:
Davis would never have appointed Forrest commander of the Army of Tennessee. Indeed, the very idea would never have entered his mind in a million years. Not only was Forrest not a West Pointer, but every corps commander and a fair chunk of the divisional commanders in the Army of Tennessee outranked Forrest in December of 1863. And even he had been a West Pointer who had ranked the other generals in the Army of Tennessee, Forrest completely lacked the experience and man-management skills to be an army commander. He was the best at commanding a brigade-sized force of cavalry on a raiding expedition, but he would have been completely out of place commanding an army.
 
Surely you remember the time Forrest stuck his saber into the Cumberland River and the river parted so his men could ride across without the horses getting wet. You didn't want to get him mad, though, because he would turn green, grow to a huge height, and start yelling, "Forrest Smash!!" There was a time when he lost a battle, but then he flew into space and flew around the earth backwards so fast that he reversed the rotation of the earth and made time go backwards so he could go back and win the battle.
 
Forrest had two shots at a combined arms command and failed miserably at both. The first was at Murfreesboro during the Hood campaign. He ended up being routed and shooting at his own troops. The second was at Selma. While late in the war and the odds heavily stacked against him he nevertheless failed. There is nothing abut these two examples that recommended him for higher command.
Forrest was very, very good at what he did. What he did was make military movements take him into consideration before moving.

Grant made danged sure Forrest was otherwise occupied when he was enveloping Vicksburg. Sherman made danged sure Forrest was otherwise occupied when he was advancing on Atlanta. And, one of the reasons he stocked up and cut his lines before leaving for Savannah was because Forrest was going to cut that line anyway. He couldn't stay in Atlanta.

Neither Grant, nor Sherman, nor Thomas could catch and disable Forrest, and they knew it. Forrest would disappear and eliminate another garrison or two. Or three.

And that was Forrest's forte. Can't live with him, but can't draw him into a major battle to hurt him. As said earlier, he was very good at what he did. Being very good at something else is projecting him into an arena where his skills were not proven.
 
Back
Top