Forrest Was Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest really great?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But did Patton ever think he had been Forrest? Now there’s a question.
I've never heard that, but it would not surprise me.

While I'm not positive, I think Patton may have mentioned some reincarnation with either
"Jeb" Stuart or "Stonewall " Jackson.

:unsure:

Although from a wealthy California family, the Pattons came from very old aristocratic Virginia linage

But yeah, great question @Sgt. Tyree !

I do think Patton & Forrest would have enjoyed meeting each other.
 
Last edited:
General Forrest was a commander that "thought outside the box". That's what made him unpredictable and good at outsmarting his opponents. It also didn't hurt that he had a reputation for being ruthless and bold. He had the respect of his men for sure...Think Clint Eastwood on steroids.
 
No, he was really not great at all. There's been a misconception from the Lost Causer camp that has idealized some of these Confederate generals and overrate them, when they did nothing to earn it. What did he do to earn a place in the pantheon of great generals? Nothing. IMO, is should be placed in the pantheon of underperformers because he did absolutely nothing to stop the Union army from tightening up the Mississippi. The reason why I consider him an underperformer is because he had the advantages to emasculate the Union Army but never remotely did. He had the classic triad for guerilla warfare: an analogous net of sympathizers, supporters and actives. Intelligence is critical to irregular warfare. Wherever the Yankees went, there were rebel eyes watching them and then broadcasting over a network of neighbors and friends, a web connection over which news traveled fast.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, it's easy to see that such insurgencies were and remain capable of paralyzing whole armies, turning them into targets emasculating them strategically, and that's because modern insurgents just did that and were carpet bombed into almost oblivion. Yet the main reason Sherman never realized the potential and danger was there was because that it never materialized. For all their tactical success, Forrest and his raiders never succeeded in bogging down the Northern invaders, from piercing the heart of the Confederacy. Forrest and his insurgents underperformed. And from an understanding of irregular warfare, this is puzzling. Therefore, what did Forrest do to be considered great? Nothing. He didn't even stop resources from making it to West Tennessee, and the west, at best he diverted resources.
 
@lurid. The statement I was responding to was did Patton ever think he had been Forrest, (in a previous life). I ventured the opinion that I didn't believe Patton was a Forrest kind of guy, in a conversation about reincarnation. Reincarnation may indeed be a fantasty. Who knows? I dont. I am not aware Sherman was part of the question. I stand by my opinion as just that, an opinion about a kind of spiritualism I am not even sure exists.

On another subject, I beIieve it is possible to have strong opinions about Civil War characters without the "lost cause" having anything to do with it. I certainly do, and I am no "lost causer".

John
 
Forrest was a general that was feared by his enemies and loved by his men. He was rough around the edges, yes, and that made him unpredictable to his enemies. One of his greatest victories was at Brice's Cross Roads, MS in 1864. History (both U.S. and Confederate perspectives) revere him to be one of the most brilliant cavalry commanders of the war.

He had no prior military training before the war but rose from the rank of private to general.
He earned the nickname "the Wizard of the Saddle"
 
No, he was really not great at all. There's been a misconception from the Lost Causer camp that has idealized some of these Confederate generals and overrate them, when they did nothing to earn it. What did he do to earn a place in the pantheon of great generals? Nothing. IMO, is should be placed in the pantheon of underperformers because he did absolutely nothing to stop the Union army from tightening up the Mississippi. The reason why I consider him an underperformer is because he had the advantages to emasculate the Union Army but never remotely did. He had the classic triad for guerilla warfare: an analogous net of sympathizers, supporters and actives. Intelligence is critical to irregular warfare. Wherever the Yankees went, there were rebel eyes watching them and then broadcasting over a network of neighbors and friends, a web connection over which news traveled fast.

From the perspective of the twenty-first century, it's easy to see that such insurgencies were and remain capable of paralyzing whole armies, turning them into targets emasculating them strategically, and that's because modern insurgents just did that and were carpet bombed into almost oblivion. Yet the main reason Sherman never realized the potential and danger was there was because that it never materialized. For all their tactical success, Forrest and his raiders never succeeded in bogging down the Northern invaders, from piercing the heart of the Confederacy. Forrest and his insurgents underperformed. And from an understanding of irregular warfare, this is puzzling. Therefore, what did Forrest do to be considered great? Nothing. He didn't even stop resources from making it to West Tennessee, and the west, at best he diverted resources.
Nothing from what I’ve read (which is admittedly not much) about NBF seems to back any of this up. On the contrary, accounts of his life, which include first hand accounts from other officers/soldiers, back up the claim that he was an incredible cavalry commander.
 
I think a good way to judge the competence of a soldier is to look at what his opponents had to say. Sherman stated that NBF was "the most remarkable man our Civil War produced...on either side." After wrecking havoc on Sherman's supply lines, Sherman demanded that NBF "be hunted down and killed even if it cost 10,000 lives and bankrupts the Federal Treasury."

Regardless of one's feelings about NBF, one thing is certain, he was not a man that you would want to go one on one against on a battlefield.
 
Nothing from what I’ve read (which is admittedly not much) about NBF seems to back any of this up. On the contrary, accounts of his life, which include first hand accounts from other officers/soldiers, back up the claim that he was an incredible cavalry commander.
Yeah, that is so true.

Original material is relatively easy to find that contradict the narrative that Forrest was the (son of satan).
NBF has always been an easy "scapegoat" ... not unlike General William Tecumseh Sherman.

Forrest was no Saint.
Far from it.
But he was not an inherently evil human.

And while a few extreme so-called "Lost Causers" do put the man on a pedestal ... the "Treasury of Virtue" crowd seem to bring up his name every week.
 
Last edited:
Nothing from what I’ve read (which is admittedly not much) about NBF seems to back any of this up. On the contrary, accounts of his life, which include first hand accounts from other officers/soldiers, back up the claim that he was an incredible cavalry commander.
Well, the little you read was Lost Cause heresy. Back up what claims? Are you saying he stopped the Union Army from cutting off the Mississippi? LOL. Okay, you read some alternative history. Please explain how he stopped the Union Army from piercing the heart of the Confederacy. No, you cannot because that never happened. He was not a Homeric throwback that destroyed armies without incident, he surrendered just like every other Confederate general. Actually he was alright as Calvary commander, nothing more. Let's pretend that he was a great Calvary commander. What did he do with it? Did he stop the Union from reaching their goal? What did he do with it? Nothing.
 
Well, the little you read was Lost Cause heresy. Back up what claims? Are you saying he stopped the Union Army from cutting off the Mississippi? LOL. Okay, you read some alternative history. Please explain how he stopped the Union Army from piercing the heart of the Confederacy. No, you cannot because that never happened. He was not a Homeric throwback that destroyed armies without incident, he surrendered just like every other Confederate general. Actually he was alright as Calvary commander, nothing more. Let's pretend that he was a great Calvary commander. What did he do with it? Did he stop the Union from reaching their goal? What did he do with it? Nothing.
Ok. Now tell us how you -really- feel about NBF.

Both Federal and Confederate officers feared, admired, and respected his military abilities. Are you claiming otherwise?

Seemed like an honorable man, who proved he was willing to learn from his mistakes and ethical errors to improve himself:
However much we differed with them while public enemies, and were at war, we must admit that they fought gallantly for the preservation of the government which we fought to destroy, which is now ours, was that of our fathers, and must be that of our children. Though our love for that government was for a while supplanted by the exasperation springing out of a sense of violated rights and the conflict of battle, yet our love for free government, justly administered, has not perished, and must grow strong in the hearts of brave men who have learned to appreciate the noble qualities of the true soldier.

Let us all, then, join their comrades who live, in spreading flowers over the graves of these dead Federal soldiers, before the whole American people, as a peace offering to the nation, as a testimonial of our respect for their devotion to duty, and as a tribute from patriots, as we have ever been, to the great Republic, and in honor of the flag against which we fought, and under which they fell, nobly maintaining the honor of that flag. It is our duty to honor the government for which they died, and if called upon, to fight for the flag we could not conquer.”

-NBF
 
No, he was really not great at all. There's been a misconception from the Lost Causer camp that has idealized some of these Confederate generals and overrate them, when they did nothing to earn it.
A while back I stated in a post that there was 'not much difference' between the generals of North and South. I was wrong.

How many times did a general come out a winner while being outnumbered 3 to 2, 2 to 1 or worse?

Confederates? Many times.

I can't say that for the other side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top