[LS]

I think that one distinguishes between ARMY commanders and brigade commanders. Forrest was great. So was Stuart, at times. So was Custer, and Buford.

[XRdsRev]

I agree. Forrest was a decent commander of relatively small forces. That doesn't automatically translate into him making a great leader to 80,000 men. A General like Forrest was a good "tactical" officer. A General like Lee or Grant was a good "strategic" officer. There is a big difference.

I like Forrest, he was an interesting fellow. I think however that his crappy performance (or non performance, since he basically sat around and did nothing while Hood's men were being destroyed) at Franklin Tennessee in 1864 eliminates him from contention for being the greatest CS General of the war.