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.
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.
I am of the opinion that if Davis had appointed General Nathan Bedford Forrest to be in command of the Confederate Army of Tennessee after Missionary Ridge, Sherman and the Yankees would soon have been in full retreat for Ohio and points further North.
My father always used to say that opinions are like *******s. Everybody has one.
So, you think an insubordinate illiterate amateur could have done better than the professionals? Wow. That's staggering in its naiveté.
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.
Ummmmm........this begs for a response. How about, "Yeah right."
It would have been interesting to see Nathan Bedford Forrest against George Armstrong Custer in a cavalry skirmish.
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.
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 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.
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.
He did well at Chickamauga, where he commanded a corps, and he did well as Lt General - cavalry.
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. Luckily for Hood, Forrest was around to save his bacon crossing the Duck River.
Forrest was very, very good at what he did. What he did was make military movements take him into consideration before moving.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.