Forrest Was Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest really great?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not a lost causer and I think Forrest was a great commander, warts and all.

Among ACW enthusiasts and historians, it seems like Forrest either shines or stinks. Some of that may be objective but I suspect much of that is because of regional loyalties, moral objections, etc. Too many people seem to arrive at a study of Forrest already having "a dog in the fight" so to speak. I know there are exceptions but I think that's common.

But from much of what I have read, among professional military officers and academy instructors (both American and foreign) Forrest is generally held in high regard. I suspect you might be hard pressed to find an American armor or mechanized infantry officer who did not think that Forrest had great tactical and operational ability. These folks are looking for applicable lessons and they think Forrest is worthy of serious study.

These links express some of what I'm talking about:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a283415.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA311713.pdf
 
Last edited:
That Devil FORREST! ‘ Get there first with the most men” ! Shelby Foot said had the other Generals listed to him it is likely that the South would of won the war!
Without formal military training does that not sum up an intuitive insight into tactical thinking developed over the history of warfare? Easy for us who have read countless tomes on armed conflicts; for someone barely literate it qualifies as “great”.
My humble opinion.
 
The Worst Military Leaders in History, Jennings and Steele, has a chapter on Forrest
I can't say I know too much about this, I assume, book, but it can't be too good if there's a chapter putting Forrest in that category.

BUT I'd bet some of Forrest's opponents deserve a chapter. Two or three at least.
 
Here is a link to an article about the chapter on Forrest from this upcoming book:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...t-military-career-civil-war-ku-klux-klan.html
I couldn't make it through the whole write up. Too much bs...

From the start its full of outright falsehoods and twisted facts to suit an obvious axe to grind. I mean, Forrest's ancestry wasn't Scots-Irish, it was Welsh, Irish, with a little English and I can't remember what else. I could go on from there but the whole write up just goes downhill.

That write up is as worthless as most of the over-the-top Pro-South mythical books about Forrest out there, written and passed off as "history" in WAY too many circles. A bunch by a certain author who ought to be thrown in a river himself, but I won't name to be nice to others. I think I'll be sticking to books on Forrest by Jack Hurst, and the best of the old classics by John Wyeth.
 
I couldn't make it through the whole write up. Too much bs...

From the start its full of outright falsehoods and twisted facts to suit an obvious axe to grind. I mean, Forrest's ancestry wasn't Scots-Irish, it was Welsh, Irish, with a little English and I can't remember what else. I could go on from there but the whole write up just goes downhill.

That write up is as worthless as most of the over-the-top Pro-South mythical books about Forrest out there, written and passed off as "history" in WAY too many circles. A bunch by a certain author who ought to be thrown in a river himself, but I won't name to be nice to others. I think I'll be sticking to books on Forrest by Jack Hurst, and the best of the old classics by John Wyeth.
I lost track on the number of times I rolled my eyes when reading that article. What nonsense.
 
I couldn't make it through the whole write up. Too much bs...

From the start its full of outright falsehoods and twisted facts to suit an obvious axe to grind. I mean, Forrest's ancestry wasn't Scots-Irish, it was Welsh, Irish, with a little English and I can't remember what else. I could go on from there but the whole write up just goes downhill.

That write up is as worthless as most of the over-the-top Pro-South mythical books about Forrest out there, written and passed off as "history" in WAY too many circles. A bunch by a certain author who ought to be thrown in a river himself, but I won't name to be nice to others. I think I'll be sticking to books on Forrest by Jack Hurst, and the best of the old classics by John Wyeth.
His Father was of Scots/English descent his Mother was also of English descent

Not a drop of Irish in him which is not surprising as very few Irish had emigrated at the time before his birth.

Don't know where the Welsh comes in although their was a big Welsh community in Tennessee.

Forrest name is more common in Scotland and Beck is more common in England through its Scandinavian/Saxon heritage.

Judging by my own family which is Scots/English and my Wife who is pure Welsh I can understand how confusing family trees can get.

My kids can play football for Scotland , England or Wales :confused: .
 
Or to put it all another way:

Greatness requires remarkable.

From remarkable deeds, to remarkable turnarounds, to remarkable feats, Forrest qualifies for greatness in all departments

If you want a great hero, or great villain, Forrest can accommodate you on either!

Horrid man who had a rough upbringing he didn't suffer fools lightly but as others have said as an independent cavalry commander their were few better.

He found god in the end but the gates were closed.
What gates were closed?
 
I'm going a little off topic but the above statement is interesting to me.

The point of most of these Union cavalry incursions was to "drive old Dixie down" by the destruction of material and infrastructure and not the engagement and tactical defeat of Confederate units, correct? What was the equivalent of this in the plains campaigns? For the most part, it was the destruction of the horse and buffalo herds. This was done.

For instance, Ranald Mackenzie and his 4th U.S. Cavalry killed about 2000 Indian horses at Palo Duro Canyon (and there are other examples). The buffalo herds, while not directly targeted by the Army, were eliminated by the hide hunters with Army consent and in some cases Army support.

Of course, these efforts were on a smaller scale that the Union cavalry raids and the subjugation of the plains tribes took much longer than the defeat of the Confederacy. But post ACW, did the United States even have the resources to commit to the effort on a larger scale for faster results?
No, the US did not have the resources and the nation was sick of war. In 1873 or so Congress forgot to finance the military in their budget hearings. That's how little people wanted to deal with military matters.
 
Grant, Grierson, Wilder, Sheridan, Wilson, all knew that Forrest was tactically correct. Imitation is the sincerest form of factory. Grant especially knew that cavalry was capable of rapid disruptive raids. The war ended with multiple cavalry incursions into what remained of the Confederacy. If the same money and effort had been spent on the plains, the Indians would have more clearly seen their inevitable defeat.
The war debt caused a crash in the economy. There was not money to put into a full military campaign. The Army shrunk and was almost forgotten. Skeleton budget to operate on. It took 10 years to recover and then the tactic was too burn lodges and food stuffs in Winter and shoot all captured ponies. Forcing natives back onto the reservations was the main task of the army out West. Not so easy to do in the great wide empty.
Grant, Grierson, Wilder, Sheridan, Wilson, all knew that Forrest was tactically correct. Imitation is the sincerest form of factory. Grant especially knew that cavalry was capable of rapid disruptive raids. The war ended with multiple cavalry incursions into what remained of the Confederacy. If the same money and effort had been spent on the plains, the Indians would have more clearly seen their inevitable defeat.
 
His Father was of Scots/English descent his Mother was also of English descent

Not a drop of Irish in him which is not surprising as very few Irish had emigrated at the time before his birth.

Don't know where the Welsh comes in although their was a big Welsh community in Tennessee.

Forrest name is more common in Scotland and Beck is more common in England through its Scandinavian/Saxon heritage.

Judging by my own family which is Scots/English and my Wife who is pure Welsh I can understand how confusing family trees can get.

My kids can play football for Scotland , England or Wales :confused: .
Well you got me to questioning my memory, so I pulled out my copy of Hurst's book.

Going by it, it says Forrest's family was English, Scottish, and Irish on his father's side, and Scots-Irish on his mother's. I know I read of Welsh blood somewhere...

It seems we're both wrong, but I'd love to know your source. It drives me crazy how so d**ned many folks think the South is entirely Scottish or Scots-Irish, when its majority English descent. I know my family goes back before 1700 in the South in most lines, and I only got a smidgen of Irish or Scottish blood, as I'm mostly English descent, and one only has to look at Southern Culture and architecture to see, there ain't a lick of Scottish or Irish influence.
 
Well you got me to questioning my memory, so I pulled out my copy of Hurst's book.

Going by it, it says Forrest's family was English, Scottish, and Irish on his father's side, and Scots-Irish on his mother's. I know I read of Welsh blood somewhere...

It seems we're both wrong, but I'd love to know your source. It drives me crazy how so d**ned many folks think the South is entirely Scottish or Scots-Irish, when its majority English descent. I know my family goes back before 1700 in the South in most lines, and I only got a smidgen of Irish or Scottish blood, as I'm mostly English descent, and one only has to look at Southern Culture and architecture to see, there ain't a lick of Scottish or Irish influence.
German and Dutch are prevelant also throughout the South.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top