Replies

That being said Forrest the master of tactics was the only man Sherman feared.

OTOH, Forrest's tactics on a large scale may well have looked rather like Sherman's strategy. Forrest properly understood it as a war of motion, and probably would have relied on lots of movement and destruction of Sherman's logistics.

The big question is whether Forrest would have been able to make the transition from a guy in the thick of things (cf. his 3 dozen kills), to a guy who thought weeks and months into the future.

That's a tough call, but I have to come down on the "no" side -- he was too involved, and probably wouldn't have tried to micromanage his division commanders.

Hmmmm a good strategist doesn't make a good tactican or vice versa neccasarly whenever I play computer war sims it seems to me that I'm a good strategist but a lousy tactician( ussually I win even online but I tend to lose battles where I'm evenly matched). I really have no idea how Forrest would have done if he was placed in command of all Confederate forces in the West.

He would have probably been killed eventually in larger column style engagements. The South and the North as well to a lesser degree lost many fine regimental commanders at the front exhorting their troops. Grant was as well a very able attrition war expert. He was determined and knew that his man and material edge was pivotal. He was no Omar Bradley, he knew that in order to prevail he would have to suffer casualties and he did. Lee's strength beyond his personal aura of integrity (OK Walt I left you a broadside i know)was having a good command and able tactical and strategical talents. Jackson was not only tactical but had a sheer degree of will that was almost superhuman. It seems obvious to me that the rankings on both sides would include Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan on one and Lee, Jackson, and Forrest on the other. What order one prefers is rather subjective and pure conjecture. I wish we had clones of them all right now in this odd war we're in.