Settle this... Between Stuart and Forrest

Who was the better cavalry commander?

  • Stuart

  • Forrest


Results are only viewable after voting.
I'm not so sure partisans who get around mounted qualify as cavalry.

Mosby's unit was 43rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, so he was designated and considered cavalry, as were Forrest's units. But you are right in that Mosby did not perform in a classic cavalry role.

We've done a lot of hair splitting on this thread, and other similar threads, over what is and what is not to be considered cavalry proper. Many insist that being horse mounted or being transported to the fight horseback is not the definition of cavalry. Other's disagree.

It continues to this day. In the modern U.S. Army, cavalry units may be armored cavalry or air cavalry and perform the classic cavalry missions (scout, screen, raid and parade). Cavalry units have armored vehicles and helicopters, but not all units with armored vehicles and helicopters are considered cavalry. Some are designated armor, mechanized infantry, or aviation, instead of cavalry. Same equipment but different missions and employment. And so it goes.
 
Last edited:
I realize many on the forum are infatuated with Forrest and practically worship at his image, but Stuart was the better cavalryman--heck, of the two he was the only cavalryman. Also, Stuart had a significant impact on the Eastern Theater, changing campaigns and bringing decisive information.

Forrest was little more than a nuisance.

If I was a confederate interested in winning the war, then it's Stuart hands down.
 
If I was a confederate interested in winning the war, then it's Stuart hands down.

You are still overlooking several of Stuart's most important military qualities.

When you were with Stuart:
- it was dashing;
- it was daring;
- and a good time was had by all.

Now those are important qualities in a cavalry commander.

 
Last edited:
I realize many on the forum are infatuated with Forrest and practically worship at his image, but Stuart was the better cavalryman--heck, of the two he was the only cavalryman. Also, Stuart had a significant impact on the Eastern Theater, changing campaigns and bringing decisive information.

Forrest was little more than a nuisance.

If I was a confederate interested in winning the war, then it's Stuart hands down.
But there was a bounty on Forrest's head.
 
If I remember the original question correctly, it was not who was best, it was who would you prefer to ride with? (1) I found it fun to contemplate. (2) I'll stick with Mosby which I guess puts me in the Stuart's camp since Mosby was under Stuart's command.
 
Nothing against Jeb Stuart, a most capable & competent Cavalry commander, but I've always been more partial to Forrest, myself. It always seemed to be he did a lot more with less, as opposed to Stuart, to go with, if I were on the opposing side, who would I least want to see charging towards me? Yeah, Forrest takes that easily.
 
Ditto for me! Seriously, I thought of a point... well, a couple. First, Forrest wasn't always a sourpuss... read Morton's book, or one of my favorites, May I Quote You, General? I apologize for not citing that properly... this tablet gives me fits. And I don't recall Stuart starting over... what... three times when people decided he could just get along without his current command and someone else needed them. Gotta also give him credit for putting up with Bragg, Wheeler, S.D. Lee, Hood. Good grief. He didn't kill any of them.
 
Back
Top