Replies

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.

I don't know where you read your history of Franklin, but I've never seen any historian who tagged that disaster to anyone but Hood. Forrest expressed his utter contempt for the way Hood threw away the lives of men who could not be replaced, and whose absence led to the total destruction of the army at Nashville (saying that if Hood were not a cripple, he'd thrash him). It is true that Forrest never had a large command, having raised his own several times from scratch. But for ratios of enemy casualties to his own, or for accomplishing ambitious goals when operating with his own (small) forces it's hard to think of anyone else in his league.

Commanding smaller units, of course, is somewhat liberating in that you can exploit weaknesses immediately in front of you without worrying about the fate of the rest of the army.

It is said that Burnside was a good corps commander, but, obviously, a weak commander of the army.

Likewise, as great as he was, I would not want a Patton in Eisenhower's position as commander in of the entire theater. His initial successes would come at a cost to alliances and systems of support that would threaten the ultimate objective.

My great-great grandfather was a cavalryman with Forrest. And you are right, he was not a strategist. Forrest's value came from the fact he was fearless and aggressive, just what was needed for a cavalryman under those circumstances. If issued an order he would carry it through with vigor and punch. But he was not of a strategic bent, and that is why he never progressed to such levels. He was not the best general in the CSA; I think that distinction, at least other than Lee, belongs to Jackson. Now, Jackson was a great general, and did wonders with what he had. If he had not been killed at Chancellorsville in May, 1863, the battle of Gettysburg two months later would have had a different ending, and so would have the war. Of that I am quite certain. Lee was not kidding when, upon hearing of Jackson's fate, he said that he had lost his right arm. Lee and Jackson, as a team, were phenomenol.