The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Conflict posts > Civil War

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-28-2002, 11:47 AM
David's Avatar
David David is offline
Administrator
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 46,798
Distinctions
Special Projects VOM Staff Contributor 
Default Stuart vs Forrest

usmcsgt65

Registered to :Jan 03, 2002
Messages :49
From :Las Vegas, NV
Posted 18-01-2002 at 21:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is time to start the fur flying. Who was the better general Stuart or Forrest. My Yankee opinion is Nathan B. Forrest was better organized, fought better, lead better, and planned better that JEB.
-----------------
Semper Fi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
DMZ-LT

Registered to :Aug 27, 2001
Messages :335
From :ATLANTA
Posted 18-01-2002 at 22:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forrest by far- mean sob


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
MORTARDUDE

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :429
From :Bartlett, TN. C.S.A.
Posted 18-01-2002 at 23:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have some serious irons in this fire. My great-granfather rode with Forrest's outfit after he went AWOL from his 1 year enlistment with the infantry following Shiloh. This resulted in him not getting his $ 20 TN Confederate pension when he was 80 years old. Although Stuart in some respects might be considered the better tactician, for just plain old "hell on wheels", you couldn't beat Nathan Bedford. I forgot how many horses he had shot out from under him and then there was that one man charge he made. Old JEB will forever bear the stigma of "what if" for his failure at Gettysburg.....

Larry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email www Qoute
Andy

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :197
From :Massachusetts
Posted 19-01-2002 at 01:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's an interesting side story to Forrest. When a German named Heinz Guderian went to the War College in Berlin he wrote his thesis on Nathan B. Forrest. Guderian applied what Forrest did on horses to tanks. Guderian more or less invented the Panzer Division and was a hugh player in the consept of blitzkrieg.

Seems Guderian's idea behind all planning was, "One tank where it is not expected is worth 10 tanks where they are expected." It appeared that was exactly what the US army was thinking and doing in Operation Desert Storm.

Forrest may have been smarter than even he thought.

Stay healthy,
Andy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
chilidog

Registered to :Aug 22, 2001
Messages :100
From :Baton Rouge, LA USA
Posted 20-01-2002 at 11:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In defense of Ole Jeb, he was tied to the ANV. He wasn't allowed as much freedom of movement as Forrest. Forrest had a combat mission where Stuart had a priority on recon.

chilidog


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
MORTARDUDE

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :429
From :Bartlett, TN. C.S.A.
Posted 20-01-2002 at 13:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chilidog :

What is your take on Jeb S. and Gettysburg ? Would he have made a difference ?

Larry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email www Qoute
chilidog

Registered to :Aug 22, 2001
Messages :100
From :Baton Rouge, LA USA
Posted 20-01-2002 at 20:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry,
I think so. Everything that Gen. Lee did during that battle was so unlike any of his other actions. Gen. Lee fretted a lot over being blind during that time period. I wonder how much of Gen. Lee's reputation was a result of good intel. I wouldn't blame ALL of Gen. Lee's actions on Stuart, but I think it was a factor.

My highschool ag teacher told us one time that the bull counts for half of the herd. That holds true for Stuart with his officers. The performance of the Cav of the ANV and their officers are a testament to Stuart's character.
How would you rate the LTs in your company? Did they make half of their platoon?

chilidog


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
usmcsgt65

Registered to :Jan 03, 2002
Messages :49
From :Las Vegas, NV
Posted 20-01-2002 at 23:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, JEB was "the eyes" of ANV, and all of know how important intelligence is to commanders. Forrest took vague orders to harass, and invented modern mobile warfare.Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get there firstest with the mostest.
-----------------
Semper Fi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 21-01-2002 at 22:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's remember one thing when we compare the two generals. Forrest never had a military education. He made up for that by being a natural born genius at cavalry tactics and sheer raw nerve.

Stuart was a West Pointer. Therefore he was more disciplined than Forrest and probably made a better fit for the ANV than Forrest would have. Basically Forrest got along with no one and operated independently for most of the war. If I recall correctly, at one point he threatened to shoot Bragg.

He was one to never give up, witness his escape from Fort Donelson as well as Vicksburg. Lee may have recognized him for his pure genius, but I don't know how well they would have worked together.

I like Forrest better than Stuart, both had good qualities but pound for pound I would have rather rode with a man who had 30 horses shot out from under him and killed 31 men in combat. Forrest was the only man in either army to rise from private to Lt. General.

However,I must also defend stuart. I beleive he takes way too much blame for the Gettysburg fiasco. as far as I am concerned you can point a finger at a combination of Longstreet, Lee and Ewell for the loss. It would have been nice had stuart been there to help screen the army and gather intelligence but were there not other confederate cavalry units there?

I think Lee gave Stuart tacit permission to go on his raid, especially after their near defeat at Brandy Station in early June. Ity was a way to get the cavalry spirits up again and recover some lost pride.

Bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile www Qoute
MORTARDUDE

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :429
From :Bartlett, TN. C.S.A.
Posted 21-01-2002 at 23:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot to mention above about my gr-grandfather's situation. He enlisted in
Co. F, 9th Tennessee Infantry, CSA on
May 23, 1861, to serve 12 months. He fought at the battle of Shiloh on April 6, 1862. He always told my Dad he was wounded and went to the Bloody Pond. His company fought in the Hornet's Nest for three hours and later made a charge across the Peach Orchard. He was listed as a deserter on June 23, 1862. His 12 month enlistment was over. I was fortunate enough to find a book about the Ninth Tennessee Infantry which has a roster and information about every soldier. From this I discovered the "desertion" rate in his Company alone was 45 %. What happened was that many soldiers decided to "jine" the calvary. My Gr-grandfather is shown as enlisting in Co. A ( Neely's ), 14th ( also called 13th ) Tennessee Calvary, CSA, on March 14, 1863 to serve 3 years. He was last reported on roll as a May 13, 1864 as a 5th sergeant. He is shown as surrendered and paroled on May 25, 1865,
having last participated in the battle of Atlanta on July 6, 1864. The 30+ pages of correspondence and affidavits in his TN. Confederate Pension records document his war record. His widow was awarded the pension that he never got. If you have any interest in your ancestors and the civil war and you have access to Civil War State Pension records, check into it. It is well worth your time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email www Qoute
MORTARDUDE

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :429
From :Bartlett, TN. C.S.A.
Posted 22-01-2002 at 07:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chilidog :

You said :

My highschool ag teacher told us one time that the bull counts for half of the herd. That holds true for Stuart with his officers. The performance of the Cav of the ANV and their officers are a testament to Stuart's character.
How would you rate the LTs in your company? Did they make half of their platoon?

chilidog

++++++++++++++++++++++

My experience is that 2nd LTs ( butter bars ) are in the way, 1st LTs are a litle better, unless battlefield commisioned. NCOs run all of the military. A platoon can always function without officers if it has experienced senior NCOs.

Larry

-----------------
Larry 81MM + 4.2" MORTARDUDE B Co. 2/22 (M) 25TH INF DIV. ( 1970 ) St. John 12-13 : This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email www Qoute
DMZ-LT

Registered to :Aug 27, 2001
Messages :335
From :ATLANTA
Posted 22-01-2002 at 08:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS. I ran a Cav. Plt. along the DMZ for over 8 months, had about 1/2 strenght and NO NCO'S- from where I was experienced senior NCO's were running the PX not the ambush patrols. Shit house graffiti summed it up pretty good " Old soldiers never die - the young ones do"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
MORTARDUDE

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :429
From :Bartlett, TN. C.S.A.
Posted 22-01-2002 at 10:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMZ-Lt :

I apologize. I can only speak from personal experience with the 25th Div. We were lucky to get experienced NCOs from the 82nd Airborne, 1st Inf. Div., 9th Inf. Div,
etc., who couldn't DEROS when their division was pulled out. By senior NCOs I didn't mean worthless first sergeants, just E-6s and some E-5s etc. We seemed to have very few officers. We had a total of three COs ( Capt. ) in my 11 1/2 months. One lasted a week. The other two about equal time. Our mortar platoon only had an LT for about 30% of the time I was in country and we saw very little of him. He must have slept in the Captain's track. Most of the time our platoon was run by an E-5. Hope this helps. No harm no foul.

Larry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email www Qoute
DMZ-LT

Registered to :Aug 27, 2001
Messages :335
From :ATLANTA
Posted 22-01-2002 at 10:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to apologize for anything to me . We all saw different things from different angles - you ain't heavy your MY brother. Welcome home bro - keep posting !!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
usmcsgt65

Registered to :Jan 03, 2002
Messages :49
From :Las Vegas, NV
Posted 23-01-2002 at 21:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragg should have been shot, or at least hurt , well maybe kicked in the head. His poor leadership opened the door for Sherman. Even Gen. D.H. Hill signed a letter to have him removed from command. At Gettysburg, Lee's verbal orders to Stuart to locate the main line of advance and report did not mean to "ride around" the Union Army like he did to McClellan. Longstreet's argument to defend not attack, I think was a better course of action for Lee, but the ANV was noted for boldest. I think, Lee did not overcome the mistake of not holding the high ground by the end of the 1st day.

"It's Lowell over there. He'll fight hard."
Gen. Armstead
-----------------
Semper Fi



Andy

Registered to :Aug 23, 2001
Messages :197
From :Massachusetts
Posted 23-01-2002 at 21:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sgt.65,
Pretty sure I read that Bragg's wife wrote a letter saying he was doing a poor job while he was in charge.

Stuart at Gettysburg had to have been a low point in career.

And Longstreet, if Lee had only listened to him, what if...

Obviously, I agree with your post.

Stay healthy,
Andy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Email Qoute
usmcsgt65

Registered to :Jan 03, 2002
Messages :49
From :Las Vegas, NV
Posted 25-01-2002 at 19:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Foote and Freedmen in their 3rd volumes of the Civil War give a good account of Bragg in Georgia. Maybe we do a post Braxton Bagg?
-----------------
Semper Fi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile Qoute
Tamaroa

Registered to :Aug 21, 2001
Messages :35
From :West Haverstraw, NY
Posted 27-01-2002 at 00:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy and Sgt65,Regarding the Confederate High Command at GB, here is my take. Stuart took way more of the blame than he should have. Granted he wasn't there to screen the ANV when it was needed ,but the cavalry didn't contribute much anyway during the whole of the battle. Custer saw to that over on what is today known as East Cavalry field.

Longstreet and Lee are the most culpable in the affair. Longstreet's defensive idea was sound, no argument there The ANV always did much better when they fought defensively. I think that once Lee made his decision, Longstreet sulked. He didn't want to do the charge to the point where he actuallty tried to force the decision on Colonel E. Porter Alexander of the artillery on day 3 before the charge. He should have reacted with alacrity, he did not.

However, even on day 2 he was slow to get his troops going up Little Round Top, the Wheatfield, Devil's den and the Peach Orchard. Had he moved earlier, they may have taken Little Round top and then provided enfilade fire to the Yankee Left flank.

On the morning of Day 3, he personally contributed to the failure of the early morning Confederate attack. Lee was going to attack both flanks again as he had done the previous day. He gave the orders and Longstreet continued his slow plodding pace. As much as I think Ewell was a dope, at least he attacked furiously on the left flank at Culp's Hill when ordered in the predawn hours of July 3rd. He broke off the attack when he realized that Longstreet had not started his attack in coordination with Ewell's. He was also taking a hell of a pounding because of the fire being concentrated on him alone.

Lee is my idol, my hero, etc. I worship the ground he walked on. BUT, that being said, he had one major flaw that GB exacerbated. He gave orders as if his subordinates were mind readers. He gave orders to Ewell that were phrased take the hill "If Practible". To Ewell that meant test and if it looked to strong, back off. To Jackson, it would have meant run over the damn thing regardless of the cost.

In short, he did not give clear instructions to his generals. Ewell and Early were not Jackson, as a result, attacks falter where they may have succeeded had Lee been more clear or forceful.

For an excellent read on day three and pickett's charge, read Pickett's Charge, A microhistory by George Stewart. It is an excellent book and very informative.

Regards,

bill
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JEB Stuart coachman Civil War 5 05-24-2005 05:38 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.