Replies

Look at their eyes...one man killed nearly 3 dozen men hand to hand...the other gave orders. Crazy eyes versus meanass determined eyes. Take yer pick!

If I want to win a battle, Forrest is the guy. If I'm trying to win a war, I'll pick Sherman any time.

I think that is a call difficult to make. Forrest never commanded anything beyond cavalry (or dragoons really) until the very final days of the war when I think he defacto ended up with some footpounders. Hence, he was never tested nor defeated as a unit until he surrendered near Selma in 1865. Davis being a snotty plantocrat never thought Forrest had the proper bloodlines or education I suppose. I'm sure Grant and Sherman were grateful for that oversight. I am quite willing to acknowledge Sherman's proclivity for victory and punishment and while I do not like it....I certainly understand it. We are living in an era where both Sherman and Forrest would come in mighty handy in my view. Sherman directing attrition against our foes and Forrest in the Khost area pursuing raghead terrs. Sounds comforting to me.

Exactly Sherman was the master of strategy Forrest was the master of tactics. Sherman would deploy his army group( thats what "The Grand Army of the West" was) in such a way that it would be irrelevant if the portion of it tying down the Confederates in battle won or not. That being said Forrest the master of tactics was the only man Sherman feared.