Settle this... Between Stuart and Forrest

[John Winn]

Stuart was more actual cavalry, had a better beard, and had a feather in his cap. And he's mentioned in the Jine The Cavalry tune. So there.

 

[gunny]

Stuart was more actual cavalry, had a better beard, and had a feather in his cap. And he's mentioned in the Jine The Cavalry tune. So there.

I concede to all except the best cavalryman. Lol!

 

[gunny]

Stuart was more actual cavalry, had a better beard, and had a feather in his cap. And he's mentioned in the Jine The Cavalry tune. So there.

You mean... So thar!

 

[War Horse]

I don't know of any cavalry on the southern side that was exclusive to horseback or dismounting and fighting on foot.

There was a difference between the style of weapons carried by the Cavalry and Forrest's men. Forrest preferred to fight dismounted. Stuart on the other hand fought some of the most magnificent mounted Cavalry battles of the war. Horse slamming into one another, sabers slashing, true Cavalry actions. Forrest would rather trick you than shoot you. He bluffed his way into more victories than any other officer of the war that I know of.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

I voted for Stuart in the Cavalier poll, but I had to go with Forrest in this one based on the part that asks

So who would you rather fight under

Forrest was a local guy in my neighborhood, plus think of the stories you could share with your Grandkids !

Tell me about Forrest again Paw Paw ! . . . tell me about Forrest !

 

[gunny]

There was a difference between the style of weapons carried by the Cavalry and Forrest's men. Forrest preferred to fight dismounted. Stuart on the other hand fought some of the most magnificent mounted Cavalry battles of the war. Horse slamming into one another, sabers slashing, true Cavalry actions. Forrest would rather trick you than shoot you. He bluffed his way into more victories than any other officer of the war that I know of.

I agree to a degree, but I feel the theaters of war dictated that more so than Forrest. Look at Federal cavalry commands in the west. Very similar styles to Forrest. Right?

 

[gunny]

What Federal commander in the west was a "true" cavalryman if you put it that way?

 

[War Horse]

I agree to a degree, but I feel the theaters of war dictated that more so than Forrest. Look at Federal cavalry commands in the west. Very similar styles to Forrest. Right?

If you're talking about a lack of quality leadership. We are in agreement.

 

[gunny]

If you're talking about a lack of quality leadership. We are in agreement.

No, just styles of combat.

 

[diane]

No, just styles of combat.

I've wondered that a lot. There was a big difference. Part of it was in the men and their backgrounds - Forrest led men much like himself, as did Stuart. But there was a sizable difference. @Eric Wittenberg - is this just negligible, or did the East and West cavalry differ more than might be thought? It seems to me the Union cavalry really perked up after Grant brought many Western cavalrymen east with him.

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

Without going in detail.....Hands down, I'd fight with Forrest.....He had no pre-tense about service, fighting, or following orders that were stupid......He had good artillery officers and captured boats that he used against his enemies.

 

[1NCCAV]

No, just styles of combat.

I mentioned on the other thread that in the 21st Century Forrest would be mechanized infantry, not armored cavalry, and that there is a difference (even though they both might be riding in Bradleys). Is that a fair assessment and analogy?

Incidentally, Stuart himself would have been keenly aware of the difference. He had seen plains service with the Mounted Rifles and 2nd Dragoons.

 

[1NCCAV]

......and captured boats that he used against his enemies.

Should Horse Marines be considered cavalry?

 

[Legion Para]

So who would you rather fight under. That equates to who was the better commander.

Stuart had formal military training and experience, Forrest did not. This brings up the question just 'how important is a formal military education?' I believe Heinie Aderholt was the last officer promoted to General rank who didn't have a college education. - - - For those who are interested in Forrest, take a minute and read up on General Aderholt.

If you are asking me to place my life and well being in the hands of a Commanding Officer, then there are other things to consider besides success on the battlefield. I have seen successful officers who didn't care one lick about their men and got many of them killed. Some very successful WW II Battalion and Regimental Commanding Officers turned out to be horrendous Division and Corps Commanders in Viet Nam.

There are dam few General officers, past or present, that I would volunteer to fight under. Those that I would volunteer to fight under, I would follow them anywhere.

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Stuart was more actual cavalry, had a better beard, and had a feather in his cap. And he's mentioned in the Jine The Cavalry tune. So there.

Precisely! Seriously though, I do consider him to have been more "actual cavalry." The great beard and nice feather are just icing on the cake.

 

[1NCCAV]

Forrest was a local guy in my neighborhood, plus think of the stories you could tell to your Grandkids !

Tell me about Forrest again Paw Paw ! . . . tell me about Forrest !

There is no doubt, we don't vote for the best cavalryman in these polls. We vote for our favorite horse soldier.

 

[Vicksburger]

So who would you rather fight under. That equates to who was the better commander.

One thing is certain, both Stuart and Forrest were two of the "killers", if you know what I mean.

 

[Bee]

take a minute and read up on General Aderholt.

I took you up on your suggestion, and I am glad that I did: Excellent read, thank you.

 

[nitrofd]

I think this is a no brainer as to who was the better fighter.
FORREST LIVED
STUART DIED.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

We vote for our favorite horse soldier.

And we're not talking about the John Wayne movie !