Forrest and Stuart were men of their upbringing. What gives Forest such an edge was the fact that he was raised with that frontiersman mindset. You do whatever you have to in order to survive.
Forrest was the best battlefield tactician I’ve have ever heard of and with next to no education that’s saying something! He was a brilliant man he had 29 horses shout out from under him ! He had no fear and his bushcraft he learned at young age won many battles.
CNN would NEVER admit it, but it's the way we fought the 1st. Gulf War. "Attack um frum both ways, en puts the scare on um!" Quote: N.B. Forrest.@@Republic4ever714
His tactics were basic, but basic works; on the other hand his intelligence network was outstanding... that was the difference maker. @@Republic4ever714
I agree with your assessment. Far too often, formally trained military leaders become captive to their training, while talented neophytes can exercise unorthodox strategies, unconstrained by preconceptions.
I think Stuart was far more of a traditional Cavalry commander whereas Forrest was easily a forerunner of our modern Special Forces. His ability to adapt and make something out of nothing was very impressive.
@@TURTLES_FOR_LIFEEE There's no evidence that Lee ever said any such thing. Lee never served with Forrest and was thus in no position to evaluate Forrest first- hand. Moreover, Lee was never the type of individual to say that this or that person was the best at anything. Saying that was tantamount to saying that others were not the equal of "the best"- and Lee was well known for his tactful consideration of others.
@@bcb5696 after war lee mentioned that he never met forrest but that from reports he had seen he said that he was best confederate general,more best us general on both sides
As a native Virginian from the Shenandoah valley I must admit that as much as I like Stuart personally as a true dashing cavalier and southern gentleman I tend to think Forrest was a better fighter and leader. He had some partisan fighter ways which well suited the western theatre plus he enlisted as a private at the start of the war but at the end he was a lieutenant general. I also like his development as a man after the war. He denounced the very ku klux klan that he had helped to form because of its violent extremist terrorist activities and after a religious conversion to christianity under the preaching of Sam Jones the southern methodist evangelist and pastor of the union gospel tabernacle in Nashville (now the Ryman auditorium) he began to encourage racial harmony and reconciliation between blacks and whites
No he didn't denounce the KKK. According to his chief Artillery officer and first Exalted Cyclops John W Morton, that according to the Klan, he disbanded it because they :redeemed" six states from negro rule. But in reality Forrest probably disbanded it as convictions were at an all time high under the enforcement Acts. Check out Morton's book.
My Great Grandfather, a partisan, life was saved by Bedford at Thompson's Station but the brave General lost his favorite horse "Roderick" in doing so. The Alabama Partisan Rangers shouted out "Hurrah for the Texans!"
Stuart was Military trained and that is the reason for his inability to adapt and Forrest was self taught that I think was why I would lean towards Forrest! Great video and keep them coming
The Russians studied NBF's tactics in raiding and used them against the Germans during WWII. They towed light artillery and heavy machine guns with their horses and hit German supply depots and rear areas. NBF was a Cavalry Commander ahead of his time in many ways.
@robertswanson7301 and you know this how? Maybe they were copying Van Dorn's tactics if at all? Russians only had lend/lease trucks so horses had to be used in that mud
Not even close... It was "said" that Erwin Rommel studied Forrest's tactics and even visited Brice's Crossroads, (I live 10 minutes from the battlefield, my land sits on the battle of tupelo Mississippi's action of July 14/15,1864) Rommel did not visit Brice's Crossroads, but he may very well have studied his (Forrest tactics) and used them in North Afrika, so it wasn't the Russians @ all.
Stuart served under a great commander. Forrest had mediocre commanders. What if Forrest , instead of Stuart had commanded the Confederate cavalry during the Gettysburg campaign ?
@@manuelkong10 Stuart was " the eyes of my army " ( General Lee ). He lost contact with the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia at the beginning of the Gettysburg campaign , and took valuable time away , by capturing and herding a Federal Supply Wagon Train over to Lee. By the time he reached the battlefield , two days of fighting had gone by , and the Army of the Potomac was firmly entrenched. The third day began , Lee ordered Gen. Pickett to attack ... and that was it. A commander of Forrest's caliber - arguably - would have not lost touch with the army's main body. It is interesting to note , how cavalry commanders played a crucial role in this battle : John Buford's cavalry corps held up Heth's infantry attacks , until Reynolds send infantry to support him. The bluecoat troopers , heavily outnumbered and outgunned , did a remarkable job.
As a former Cavalry scout in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment both of those men were the soldiers I looked up to and wanted to imitate even though I'm from Ohio🤠. Scouts out!
@@richieb1684 awesome! We, the Cavalry, are the eyes and ears watching for the enemy and now it's a spiritual warfare being waged and I'm still a scout but for Christ now🗡🙏
I agree with your conclusion about Gen. Jeb Stuart, only thing I could ask is that I found this comparison so enlightening a perspective. Please do more
The way cavalry was used in the different theaters makes a difference. Stuart was pretty much tied to Lee for most of his career. The western cavalry commanders operated more often as independent units.
@Frederick Wells let’s not forget Forrest freed his slaves whether the south would’ve won or not and he also spoke out about equality for black people even speaking at their functions. I know it hurts you to know that black people loved Forrest , Davis, Jackson and Lee. Have a good day 😁
This is a tough one, and not something I've really thought of before. I kind of looked at them as broadly similar but who fought in different regions during the war. Different circumstances etc. I would have gone with Forrest purely because I don't think he ever lost his head and committed serious blunders like Stuart did. Possibly was a bit more practical and not quite the prideful and carrying on the affectation of the southern cavalier/knight whatever. I think that when things would go pear shaped Forrest was better at (as you said) adapting and extricating himself from bad situations. Yeah, I think I need to do more reading on this. Finding out that I am talking to someone with a PHD in this field is giving me performance anxiety.
Thank you so much for commenting. I agree with you. It was so tough because these men were excellent commanders and Stuart's scouting ability just astounds me. When I read about how he set up his perimeter around Lee's Army, he was a genius in his own right. I will have my PhD hopefully in December. I have finished all of my course work and am currently writing my dissertation. 2 Chapters down and 4 to go. Thank you again for your support.
The problem with Stuart was that he was fighting against his former West Point class mates & dorm. buddies. Even though he did not join in, some of the officers would gather after battle and drink whiskey and play cards together. On the other hand, Mississippi boy Forrest didn't care much for the Yankee elite. Ain't war Hell!
Forrest made plenty of mistakes. He even got his butt kicked by Black USCT soldiers at Paducah. At Chickamauga he failed consistently. Read "Failure in the Saddle" of the shortcomings of both Wheeler and Forrest.
Both Sherman and Robert E. Lee were asked after the war who was the best general in the Civil War (from both sides). Both answered without hesitation... Nathan Bedford Forrest.
It is a tough comparison to make, they fought 2 very different wars. I agree with your conclusion however it must be mentioned, Forest didn't get on well with superior officers a lot of the time, true the superiors he had out west where lackluster in ability at best. Stuart got on well with his superiors. Could they have switched roles and been successful? I read in a civil war book a few years back that at wars end Forest's army was outfittet with Union horses, saddles, utensils, rifles, rations everything pretty much even blue uniforms dyed black, to do that you gotta be sharp Another passage from a book I remember is one of his west point officers being angry that he never takes his advice, Forest reply was, you are here to tell me what the west point handbook says so we can do something else. If it is 100% true who knows, Forest did not write very well and not very often Great video pal
I love these high quality videos you make. I also would recommend an analysis of two other great cavalry commanders from the Confederate side: Wade Hampton and Jo Shelby. Wade Hampton was not only Stuart's most trustworthy lieutenant, but would come into his own as an exceptional cavalry commander when he took over the Army of Northern Virginia's Cavalry Corps after Stuart's death and when, in a last gasp effort, Hampton reshaped the cavalry forces of General Joseph Eggleston Johnston's rag-tag army. Shelby would command the legendary "Iron Brigade," the one that fought in the Trans-Mississippi West, and later a division, forces from which he would highlight his exceptional military skills.
@@FultonEagle1948 Comparison must be based on facts,and that's the culprit.After I read Dr.Roman Töppel's (Prokhorovka: Chances of a German Breakthrough?) work on the tank battle of Kursk/Prokhorovka, I am very disillusioned about any claim,any Senior officer or any government made! (No,the Germans did not loose 1500 tanks in three,days;as they did not have that many,to begin with;that's a lie Soviet commanders created,to justify their own losses to Stalin!)
Great video and a fair analysis. Like you, I am a PhD candidate with a focus on military history. I have always seen Stuart as more traditional in that he operated best within the framework of a larger organization, no doubt due to his background. Forrest, on the other hand, had no training and was therefore more flexible, hence his success as a raider and his difficulties operating under the command structure of a larger army. I wrote a paper while working on my MA evaluating Forrest at Brice's Crossroads in terms of Clausewitz's definition of the military genius. I think he came out pretty well.
IMO has to be Bedford Forrest even with NO military training !! Unlikely, yes but he proved time and time again, he was a very capable and wiley general. God Bless
Yep.....education is for those numberless souls who aren't blessed with natural born talent. Of course, Forrest could have been even greater with a West Point education but he was a maestro.......the Mozart of American military history. Born to command men and destroy his opposition. He was just never given the resources to make a real strategic difference. Possibly the greatest single command fault of the South.
@@wadehampton1737 Brother..if ANYONE had command of the Army of Tennessee, it would have been awesome..I was leaning toward Claiborne..whom Lee called the Shining Star of the Confederate Armies..
@@rodneyward8357 Forrest didn't have military training it came natural to him. We don't know what Stuart would have been like without it. Stuart was a graduate of West Point. that seems to be the reverse of what you are saying.
@@jimbuford4147 Forrest was a great general. Yes was a natural. I should have worded it different. Jeb knew union doctrine. Most military men in the south had been in the union army. Forrest was a common sense get it done as we in the south are known for. Military training does not guarantee a great leader either. Both I think were a credit to their units and the Army of the C.S.A.
Interesting rating of the two men. However, I heard on a National Park Service vid, that Forrest had 34 confirmed kills, saber and sword.. He was always at the head of his troops. They had a hard time keeping up w/ him. I'm amazed he survived the war. Are there any similar stats on JEB Stuart?
That is if you believe it. This was an estimation by Forrest himself after the war in the newspapers of Memphis drumming up political support. Sure he killed men, he did it all his life. Some confirmed but not all.
I always felt like Stuart was the Indy car of calvary generals where as Forrest was more the NASCAR style of general. Stuart was a rapier where Forrest was a cutlass. I love metaphores. Stuart had the advantage of having a highly competent commander in Lee. I think Stuart got caught up in the mythology of himself and Lee. He got caught up because the Army of Northern Virginia was invincible as long as Lee was leading them. This arrogance lead to his absence for the first 2 days at Gettysburg and losing some respect from Lee. These things led to his eventual death at Yellow Tavern. Forrest had to deal with men like Bragg and later Hood. Hood was well past his prime by the time he took over as commanding General. I feel like Forrest could have been more dangerous and then he was if he had a general like Lee commanding him. Forrest was at his best when he was operating independently from the Army as a scout and raider.
Hood rose above his level of competence when he was promoted above brigade command. He was as brave as a bulldog but had about the same intelligence. Forrest spoke to him in an extremely harsh manner following Hood's disastrous leadership at the Battle of Franklin. Forrest, who had a natural genius for combat, also read the riot act to Bragg (who, incidentally, is thought by some to have been the Confederacy's worst general).
Forrest did have a competent superior in the west, Joseph E. Johnston. Johnston was the only Confederate general to see the war in terms of the big picture. While others like Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Bragg, Hood, Stuart, and Hill were obsessing over tactics, Johnston was thinking of how to outlast the Union. The only way for the Confederacy to win a long war of attrition was if Johnston was General-in-Chief of all Confederate forces, which knowing how much Jefferson Davis hated him, was very unlikely.
Stuart made Lee better. Forrest made Bragg worse. Communication was the key. Stuart kept Lee and all others informed consistently. Forrest did not work well with others. Always at odds with other officers and never sending runners about his intentions or the enemies once he was engaged.
This Video reminded me of one of the reasons I got interested in the CW in the first place. I always liked to play "war" with my buddies (10yrs old). It was always WWII though. Then I started reading the comic book GI Combat in the 70s. It usually had an episode of the "Haunted Tank". The commander's name was Lt. Jeb Stuart and he commanded a Stuart light tank in Africa. The tank was haunted by....JEB Stuart, the dashing cavalier! I loved it. So I started reading everything about the CW I could get my hands on, and that passion has been with me for my entire life! I even got a friggin degree in it. Ah, the good old days......
@@FultonEagle1948 Yes. But unfortunately I had to find out later he was fighting for an immoral EVIL cause! Still liked the comic, but it kind of put a damper on it for me.
@@USGrant-rr2by Both. GI Combat was here in Canada too, and my friends and I used to pretend we were US Marines and dirt lumps were hand grenades. It never even occurred to us to say 'Wait a sec, this is Canada'. We didn't think about that as kids.
Stuart was to the cavalry as Admiral Beatty was to the battle cruiser fleet in World War I. They completely forgot in their most important engagement (Gettysburg for Stuart, Jutland for Beatty) that their primary function was to be the eyes of the main force. In addition, Stuart, like Custer, was impulsive. I vote (solely on military grounds) for Forrest.
Forrest paled in comparison to Stuart in communication. You pick one incident over Stuarts stellar career, something that the Yankee's had a lot to do with.
I second that. General Joseph Joe Wheeler has never got the press that he so richly deserved. He fought in the Civil War and with the Rough Riders. Roosevelt is who most people think of when they think of the Rough Riders but the then very old Wheeler played an integral part.
Excellent analysis! I agree with all of your points, but would appreciate a more in-depth approach. Such a topic begs for both more specific detail and a broader scope. This was the perfect topic to begin such a series, and I enjoyed it immensely. However, it would have been more satisfying with a longer format.
I completely agree that I need to be more in depth. However, I'm hesitant about putting out too long of a video because through the analytics less people watch to the end. So I tried to include specific examples in this video to give the viewer the best possible idea of what points I was trying to make. Thank you so much for watching. If you haven't already, please subscribe and share the videos.
@@HistoryGoneWilder As a long-time subscriber, I understand your dilemma. (Is thirty minutes too long/is fifteen minutes too short?) Go with your gut. I give programs to local history groups and always worry about going too long, myself. Keep up the good work!
Grant vs Meade NEEEEEDS done. Absolutely need it. Jackson vs Longstreet. George Thomas vs Sherman... I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE all these videos. Patton vs McArthur would be nice as well. If Grant vs Meade wasnt so crucially NEEDED, Id say Grant vs Thomas. Could compare both Johnston's. Albert Sydney vs Joe.
George Thomas was the closest thing the North had to a Lee . He was good at what he did . Sherman was fast , that was his best attribute . He was able to take a lot of men and push them somewhere fast . My money is on Thomas , he just seemed to fight a lot more actual battles . Sherman fought guerrillas , a tired shambles of an army of course his most hated enemy , buildings .
Stuart may have a slight advantage in that he was a Corps commander while NBF was a Divisional commander. Where it counts Stuart even commanded an infantry corps to add to his repertoire. However Forrest's horsemen appeared to be somewhat better and his tactics were out of the norm. A good comparison would be placing Forrest against William Quantrill or against William Anderson in single combat. It would be a good question of who had the better horsemen between the two of them.
Great comparison. As Stuart is better at scouting and have a military background , I think he suits serving in a large army than Forrest. Forrest should become a legend as an independent commander with a small army, free to move and do anything to survive and damage enemy. And he did :)
I think you are spot on as Forrest did more without as much help from the infantry and artillery out west except for General Patrick Cleburne. Stuart let his ego override his sensibility and helped cost Lee the battle of Gettysburg. Forrest remained a thorn in the Union Army until surrendering at the end of the war. I would like to see a video comparing General Patrick Cleburne and General Stonewall Jackson. Enjoyed your comparison.
I wish Cleburne would have been over the army of Tennessee. Franklin would have never happened and so many brave men wouldn’t lost their lives that sad day.
Another great video. You should do one about revolutionary general’s. Like Lord Cornwallis (who was their best battlefield general) vs Nathaniel Greene (who was an out of the box thinker who figured out how to use militia to devastating effect and the only general Cornwallis feared).
Based on what you said in the video, this may be a case where no military training actually helped Forrest. It sounds like he thought more out of the box where Stuart couldn't or wouldn't change from the "correct" military tactics he learned at West Point.
Yeah...better dressed, too...red-lined cape, plume in his cap, etc., etc.I'm pretty sure that he's the one that bought a new uniform for Stonewall Jackson...just to "dress him up" a bit(lol)!
Great video as usual...a fascinating comparison and yes I’m sure it could easily have been several hours long and I would have watched it! I’m currently re-reading Dee Brown’s 1954 classic “Grierson’s Raid” and I think Col. Grierson deserves at least an honorable mention. He lacked Stuart’s training and Forrest’s ferocity, but for a guy who was a music teacher with a deep-seated fear of horses I’d say he did his country proud.
I just watched "The Horse Soldiers" again a week ago!! A John Wayne movie based on Grierson's Raid! It is one of my top 10 CW movies. And, it actually does a fairly decent job(as movies go) conveying where and why and how the raid took place , minus the drama. My only real problem with it is people in the movie keep mentioning getting sent to Andersonville, when Andersonville didn't even exist(may 1863)yet! I'm sure you know, Grierson stayed in the Army after the war, retiring as a Brig. General.
When Forrest was making life miserable for him in Georgia, W T Sherman said it would be worth 10,000 men and bankrupting the treasury to kill Forrest. After the war, Sherman said Forrest was the most remarkable man produced by the war on either side. Case closed.
Excellent! Mosby-Jackson-Cleburne-Forrest-Armistead-Stuart and Morgan Fighting Joe , Shelby and Rosser. So many great warriors! Bloody bill as well, like Nathan Bedford Forrest much maligned. Rebel Yell! So many great soldiers.
Shelby Foote said the Civil War produced such geniuses. Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest. That was from Ken Burns Civil War series. I believe that Forrest and Stuart were great generals who struck without warning. Jeb Stuart was like Prince Rupert. A cavalier. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great example of how he would make his eye on the ground around him and launch his raids in enemy territory.
However, Foote was a storyteller rather than a historian. He was also a Confederate apologist and a lost cause romantic. His trying to place Forrest on the intellectual level of Lincoln was simply absurd. It's regrettable Burns allowed his masterpiece to be skewed by the anecdotal musings of Foote.
If Forest was a genius, he was an evil one. He never took on a battle hardened enemy and would wait for the main army and fighting to pass then he would sneak in and attack the supplies, butchering the poorly trained and poorly equipped troops guarding them.
@@dalemeade4660 I beg to differ: only a fool would want a fair fight. If you're going to fight, you use every advantage you can to deal the most damage to the enemy.
Where's the evil in that? And, by the way, Forrest's conduct of Brice's Crossroads is widely acknowledged one of the most flawlessly-conducted "small army" battles in American military history. Forrest was a realist trying to advance as best he could -- within the parameters he recognized himself constrained by -- for his country. He was no Virginia gentleman; he was hardscrabble from his cavalry boots to his campaign kepi. But he outfought virtually all the Virginians, and there was one personage not yet mentioned who, after the war, wondered "what if" about Forrest -- Jefferson Davis. @@dalemeade4660
Just found your excellent Channel & subbed up. Good Points taken.... but I'm sittin on this one.... you'll never see me say anything against JEB. My Mom's family were with the 7th Virginia Inf....Were burned out & escaped to Canada in 65'. Needless to say, I've been intrigued since I was a kid.
Great vid and as a yankee decendant(24th michigan), Forrest has always fascinated me. There is something very American about the ability to start as a private and end the war as a Lt. General based on merit alone. Btw, if I had one critique, it's the constant pronouncing of cavalry as calvary. work on it. otherwise, your content is top notch.
I hate that pronunciation too. I apologize. I make it a point to say cavalry, but when I get excited when talking I will slip and say calvary. I know exactly what you are saying.
Have History Will Travel have a Christian upbringing? Those of us who do tend to make that mistake often because of “Calvary” in the Biblical narrative. I do that very same thing.
@@dalemeade4660 Lol I'm Catholic so I do get it. But I am also a descendent of a civil war vet so the pronunciation of cavalry/calvary has been an irritant since I was a wee lad. I'm glad I broke that chain long ago. I was going to mention the Christian connection in my original post but I thought It might be a little tacky. Have History Will Travel has been great content during the lockdown and easily much better than anything on TV.
Very good information. My bias is Forrest due to his ability to innovate. Additionally, he disobeyed the surrender order at Ft. Donelson and led his men out of the fort at night to avoid captivity.
I would also add that Forrest was much more ruthless when dealing with the enemy than Stuart. Stuart trained as a chivalrous commander at West Point, Forrest just wanted to win and did some not so nice things with prisoners to keep himself and his men alive.
@@thevoid4060 One record says he through a Union soldier on the back of his horse when riding away from the enemy so any bullets that came his way would hit his "prisoner."
Agree with your conclusion- but was surprised that you didn't mention Stuart's complete failure to follow Lee's orders and go off "joy riding" at Gettysburg- probably the single most important factor in Lee's defeat there...
Forrest's overall effect on Union Operations, tips the scale for me. His raids on Grants supply lines 1863, was the major factor in getting Grant to change his axis of attack from N. Miss (by land) and shift to the Miss. River as his axis of attack to take Vicksburg, which delayed Grant for a year. He also commanded all parts (infantry, artillery, cavalry) as one combined unit, Stuart did not (cavalry only). Forrest's down side was his relations with his superiors.
@3idraven714 The battle at Vicksburg was May to July 1863. To what years delay do you refer? Seems most folks credit Forrest for raiding and burning Grant's depot at Holly Springs, MS, in December 1862, when this was actually Van Dorn's action, in which Forrest took part. We can rewrite history IF we tell a good enough story
@@jimrichardson3078 Van Dorn was a P@ssy, got shot BECAUSE of P@ssy, Forrest was in the saddle, leading the charge, F@ck Whimp Van Dorn, he GOT what he deserved, a cowards death. You change the History, cause History says Van Dorn WAS a P@ssy, and Forrest was MOST definately not.
I love Civil War history and believe Nathan Bedford Forrest was not only the best General in the Civil War, but American History. He was constantly outnumbered and constantly won until he took on the repeating rifles. Great video.
@@davemoore8517 There would be if he really believed it.....He would just have to bring the debate down to a micro-level. Seeing as Forrest never got the chance for high command, most likely stemming from the fact he wasn't a West pointer. Which, judging by his feats, would set him apart. He could compare Grant's plan, tactics and execution at Belmont or Ft. Donaldson to Forrest's plan, tactics, and execution at say 1st Murfreesboro or Brice's Crossroads? And he could point out how Forrest was studied by the German generals of WWII. Was Grant? I'm not sure, and I know Grant like my middle name is Grant (it is). He could talk about how Forrest accomplished so much with so little and with a much lower casualty rate, compared to Grant. He could have brought up the fact that the 3 acknowledged greatest generals of the CW all said that Forrest was the best general that came out of the war..........just sayin.
@@USGrant-rr2by Well, there's a lot there to unpack. And I'm tempted to not take the bait. First, there's nothing in NBF's tactical or operational performance that would indicate he would have been set apart in overall command. You say "high command" but I think you mean "overall command." He ranked "high command" as lieutenant gen by end of war, but he affected no measurable change in outcome. There's no scholarly study of the supposition of his having overall command of infantry, artillery, & cav (scholarly is the keyword). Yet there's volumes about USG's actual tactical performance and his successful leverage into operational and strategic command. His development of tempo and maneuver ushered in the era of modern warfare and his methods are still studied today at the US Army War College and all military academies. Please read this: ehistory.osu.edu/articles/us-grant-and-operations-0 Further, I find in my research a myth about German generals studying CSA generals, but no actual evidence of it. I would love to be better informed by being shown scholarly evidence. Lastly, who are these greatest generals of the CW who said this of NBF? I know Lee said as much. But I'm hoping you're not referring to WTS and USG as the other two? Please. Educate me, my friend!
I wouldn’t argue with Mr. Foote, his three volume set of books on the War are classic. But I wonder what tactics Stuart is supposed to not have adapted too? I might also wonder how they would of done as Corp commanders rather than small (by comparison) Calvary units? One cannot fault either man when it comes to courage and willingness to engage an enemy. As to Gettysburg, let’s be very fair, General Lee’s plan was to go to Harrisburg, not Gettysburg, so Stuart was simply outpacing the army under Lee. I might also wonder, we’re there not enough Calvary to provide screening even without Stuart? I think the criticism of Stuart is more influenced by television than research. Continued good fortune in your studies on the great leaders of the Civil War.
Great video! I agree with your assessment. The lack of formal military training gave Forrest a handicap but he made up the difference with common sense back woods logic.
The comparison is a little trickier in that Stuart participated in more, larger campaigns. Forrest was further on the periphery of things. Interesting video.
Excellent. I'm from Memphis and my dad's family rode with Forrest and other Tennessee CSA units. Forrest was brave, inventive, and fearless...Stuart was no slouch, but I think Forrest was ahead of him.
Bottom Line: I would have followed LTG Nathan Bedford Forrest CSA) to hell and back or any other place he chose to lead his men to go more so than to. MG James Ewell Brown (Jeb) Stuart (CSA). It is both a honor and privilege to state that I am blood related to both and they are listed in my family genealogy tree.
Stuart was part of that Cavalier social superiority, the idea that the upper class (NOBILITY) would provide the superior leadership. Lee faced this problem in the officer corps and he could never rid his army of this influence. Forrest was more like the English Puritans, the Roundheads in his approach to life. Hence merit was what counted with him, not bloodlines. The other factor was that he commanded irregulars, individuals who did not take to the normal spit and polish discipline of army life. These men couldn't march in formation if their lives depended on it. Yet these men were often adept at creative solutions from the ground up rather than the top down. Stuart led a regular Calvary while Forrest led irregulars who could adapt and overcome. In short, they were the Marine Devil Dog or a later year.
Stuart had little performance at Gettysburg as he wasn't there for the first two days of the battle leaving Lee just about deaf , dumb and blind by which time of Stuart's return Lee's goose was already thoroughly cooked. Though Stuart had no real performance at Gettysburg his lack of presence had a huge impact on the battle. Lee never knew the disposition of the Union Army , where it was and how soon would he be tangling with the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Without Stuart and his Calvary Lee didn't know what he was up against so he attacked when he should of backed off and redeployed like longstreet wanted to do. Lee made some very big mistakes at Gettysburg and I believe that was because of the lack of current information that Stuart was supposed to provide and in my opinion and only in my opinion Stuart's ride around the Union Army may have cost the Confederacy the war and it's independents.
Had Lee had Gen. Stonewall Jackson at his disposal at Gettysburg the Confederates would've most likely prevailed. The Confederate command at Gettysburg was sorely lacking in moxie and initiative, two trademark qualities of Jackson.
@@lionelhutz5137I mostly agree, IF the Union had stayed. There may very well have never been a day 2 or 3, if Jackson had taken Culp's Hill(and I have no doubt he would have). Lee would have placed as many guns on that hill as he could and made the Union positions farther down the line untenable. Meade and the whole AOP would most likely have fallen back to their already prepared defensive line at Pipe Creek, where Meade wanted the battle to happen anyway. He even issued a Pipe Creek Circular on June 30? I think, to his Corps commanders informing them of this. But, alas, we'll never know?
@@lionelhutz5137 Wrong. Amatuers talk strategy, professionals talk supply....supply wise the South could not win a campaign in the North. It could win a battle or two, but not a campaign...agree?
Thanks for the video I enjoy all your videos. If possible could you do a comparison video of Mosby and whoever you think would be an interesting comparison. If you have the time I would like to see a comparison video of Alexander vs Cesar. Thanks
Even the Federals..(Grant, Sherman, and most Notably..Phillip Sheridan!!) said that Forrest had no equal, North or South!! Forrest, period. And if you look at Forrest, he adapted to EVERYTHING..Having No real military training. He was unbelievable at what he was able to achieve. "IF Mr. Forrest would let me be, I'd do the same for him"...as if Forrest was even worried about what Sturgis would do...His ability to understand the long travel, heat, and HUMIDITY, is what made him. And he was only surprised one time, and that was in Tennessee, when he said, "Break in two..then go both ways!!" Which was a 45° break in the two, then 200 yards or so, do it again..they couldn't focus on which way to go!! And they easily escaped..
Maybe it's my bias for living and growing up in the Shenandoah Valley but I'd have to say Stuart edges out Forrest... Looking at some of the effect of some of the partisan units under him with regards to raids and scouting , specifically Mosby, I think that puts him over the edge... Thanks for the video ,great information I'd be interested in a Revolutionary War comparison Nathaniel Greene vs Daniel Morgan (like I said I'm a Shen valley guy lol so love learning about local heroes)
Born and raised in West Tennessee Forrest Country. I thought that Mosby and Forrest were more comparable. Mosby was very slick although he stayed pretty much in three countries in Virginia. Forrest was all over the place. He captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General during the war on both sides. He did that with a Tiny Infantry and Cavalry. Forrest had 31 confirmed kills in Hand to Hand Combat. He had 29 horses shot out from under him. He was wounded 4 time even shot once with a tiny pistol by one of his own men. While knocking the arm back of the shooter Forrest had a pin knife in his other hand mortally cutting Gould. Forrest had his bed put next to Gould and Forrest cried like a baby. Gould said it is better that I die because the Country needs you more. Lee was asked who was the best Soldier he ever had under his command. Lee replied "Although I have never met the man it was Forrest. Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said he was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Stuart was shot by pure luck. The Union Soldier was running away and just shot behind him not looking and Jeb got hit. That was a very sad day for Lee am sure. I really like Thomas Jackson. He was unbelievable in the Shenandoah Valley. Both of us have much to be proud of from the men that fought a invader.
Living there, I'm surprised you didn't mention Turner Ashby! Maybe he's fresh in my mind, because I'm currently listening to S.C. Gwynne's Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson. Not long having passed the Valley Campaign...
Stuart was one of the finest Generals of the war. Forrest on the other hand is the kind of warrior that only comes up once in hundreds of years. To name Forrest's peers in history you would have to draw upon names like Ghengis Khan, Hannibal, or Alexander the Great.
Thanks for your videos. I completely agree with your assessment. The adaptability is key to any combat. I would like to maybe see Patrick Cleburne compared to Albert Sidney Johnston. They both lost their lives so I thought that it would be good to compare. Love your work
Forest had the advantage of fighting the rear guard of the Union army in his area and often attacked poorly trained and poorly equipped troops that were left to guard installations and supplies where no attacks were expected. He would go after the soft under belly and so he often caught them by total surprise. That makes for an easy victory. Stuart always took on front line troops gearing up for battle and so faced the best the Union army had. So the comparison of accomplishments does not necessarily reflect the skills of the officer rather the quality or lack there of in the enemy troops. Forrest was the brutal butcher while Stuart was the consummate southern gentleman and gallant officer.
Ok Sturgis the Union General at Brices Crossroads had 30% of his Army were supplied with new Repeating and Cartridge Rifles. Calvary outnumbered 5 to one and his Infantry was outnumbered almost 4 to 1. He did get Reinforcements hours later after Forrest attacked Sturgis. Forrest won that battle very decisively. Sturgis retired the minute he got back to Memphis. Many of his men crawling to the Train Depot they Marched from. Forrest Cavalry and small Infantry kept the Union Army from getting from Knoxville to Chattanooga for a year. Forrest had 31 kills in Hand to Hand Combat. No General in the History of our country has even touched that accomplishment. Just his name caused chaos in the Union Army. Forrest captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General during the war. How does a non trained Soldier do that? Lee was asked who was the best Soldier he ever had under his command. Lee said "Although I have never met the man it was Forrest. Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said he was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Forrest was wounded four times during the war. He had 29 horses shot out from under him. He was no coward and your comment kinda sounded like you may thought he was a coward. Maybe not but Forrest is the biggest bad ass our country ever produced.
Here's a comparison I'd like to see: which Stephen Lang performance more accurately depicts the man whom he is portraying, Pickett in Gettysburg or Jackson in G&G?
Stuart's ego had nothing to do with the battle at Brandy Station. Union cavalry had never before been so aggressive, and no one in the AoNV expected that- not even Lee.
I do agree with your assesment. So did Gen Sherman. He gave an entire Corps one job, and that was to hunt down and harrass Gen. Forrest while Sherman's Army went to Atlanta and afterwards during the March to the Sea. I think Shelby Foote considered Forrest to be one of the few geniuses the war produced when it came to fighting.
It wasn't an entire Corps. Sherman's order was for the Corp commander to delegate someone to find Forrest... which is what exactly happened. It was always the second rate commanders in Forrest's crosshairs.
I would agree with your conclusion that Forrest was the more effective and formidable commander. Stuart was a magnificent example of the classic cavalier, and he was without peer in American history in that regard. There is a reason that Forrest is still studied today world wide for his tactics and innovation. He accomplished the most with the least.
@@moderndaywyattearp5792 I'm still more impressed that a hick dirt-farmer from absolutely nowhere had any military talent let alone enough to be considered an Elite member of the CSA Cavalry.
He wasn't a "hick dirt farmer". He was one of the biggest slave traders in the south! He was rich! And he helped found the KKK. However, militarily, he was absolutely one the South's best.
I agree with your assessment of these two fine cavalry commanders. Stewart excellent but Forrest was exceptional, I only wish the powers that be would have placed him in command of an entire army. P.s Braxton Bragg was not very good.thank you enjoyed.
Sadly, Forrest once joined the KKK and I don't believe he is a cavalry commander that should be respected. I know most or even all Confederate generals were pro-slaverist and secessionist, but it is fine if they ended there. But some joined the KKK and lynched a lot of innocent people either black and white just because of their support towards the civil rights movement and support towards the Republican party. I know this is not related with the main topic of the video, but I just wanted to mention you guys about Nathan Forrest.
From a pure military standpoint, both were impressive. As the Northern forces sorted out their leadership issues, you see a complete shift from defeat to inevitable victory by the North. As people, both men supported a racist regime that murdered, raped and enslaved a race of people. For that, neither men are notable human beings and both had to answer for that choice.
When I watch old videos about say the 1986 Celtics, I don't do it so I have a chance to watch that wife beater, Robert Parrish. I watch to see the Celtics, including Robert Parish, play basketball.
Thanks again for all the videos. I have been thinking about comparisons what do you think about a video of which plan was better Nimitz island hopping where the PI was skipped or MacArthurs that went through the PI lasting a year. I know Nimitz was in the navy and MacArthur army . Thanks
General Forrest was the south’s best Can you imagine if General Forrest teamed up with Stonewall Jackson the chaos they would have caused?! Made in America baby! Wooooooooo!!!!!!!
Longstreet and Forrest could never have served together. Their personalities would have clashed irredeemably. The first time Longstreet heard a GD out of Forrest, that would have been it. Plus, Longstreet was a West Pointer who had been, when the CW broke out, a professor of artillery in Virginia. Forrest, of course, had hardly any education at all, much less military. There are other reasons. It just (A) would never have happened, and (B) would have faltered on several grounds (chiefly personality) if it had.
@@billstory8034 The same could be said of Stonewall. Forrest behavior was like Connor McGreggor or 90s era Tyson. Whereas Stonewall acted more like Billy Graham or Jerry Fallwell.
On March 25, 1864, Forrest's cavalry raided the town of Paducah, Kentucky in the Battle of Paducah, during which Forrest demanded the surrender of U.S. Colonel Stephen G. Hicks: "if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quarter." Hicks refused to comply with the ultimatum, and according to his subsequent report, Forrest's troops took a position and set up a battery of guns while a flag of truce was still up. As soon as they received the Union reply, they moved forward at the command of a junior officer, and the Union forces opened fire. The Confederates tried to storm the fort, but were repulsed; they rallied and made two more attempts, both of which failed. He certainly marshalled all of his hubris to write a check with his mouth that his body couldn't cash. Both commanders excelled in causing constrenation through raiding and ride arounds, but I am not sure either won a battle. Forrest was great at fightring rearguard actions when Bragg failed.
Rest easy; Forrest qualifies. His biggest, though not only, victory was the Battle of Brice's Crossroads. Brice's CR was at one time (maybe now, too; I don't know) taught at West Point as the classic small army battle of the Civil War in one or more credible books (though neither can I recall which).
A great video on a topic that doesn't get much coverage on this side of the Pond. Interesting reference to Stuart as a Cavalier - I've recently heard that many in the South regarded themselves as the inheritors of the Cavalier/Royalist mantle from our Civil War. I'm not sure how accurate that is but ironically our Royal family at the time was the House of Stuart (sadly no relation to me). My only gripe is that Americans cannot pronounce Stuart correctly. Anyway, subscribed.
Both men were good leaders stuart was a trained soldier Forrest wasn't in war a good leader must adapt to the situation quickly I thank Forrest done a better job at this
Gold coins or gold bars, those guys are. My family straddle the state border near Stuarts home, and my father taught history, so we heard about both every year after Christmas...
Forrest postponed the war for almost a year. He kept the Union Army from getting from Knoxville to Chattanooga for year. Also Forrest had 31 confirmed kills in hand to hand combat. Forrest captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General on both sides of the war. Forrest always showed the enemy a Dare. That caused the enemy to think Forrest had more men. Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said Forrest was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Stuart as you said didn't have to ability to change to compensate for the Forces around him or attacking him. Jeb was the Model of a outstanding Prestigious Officer and Forrest didn't bother with the optics he was supposed to be. Forrest just won and he was the bluff King. He bluffed 12,000 men to Surrender in Murfreesboro buy having his men March in a circle at the top of a hill. Constantly showing his Artillery. Under a white flag the Union Officer was looking at that over Forrest's shoulder asking Forrest how many Artillery Pieces do you have? Forrest replied I guess that is all that has been able to show up so far. After the Officer realized he had been snickered he told Forrest to give his men and supplies back. Forrest replied that all is fair and slapped the Officer on the back. Can you imagine the grin on Forrest's face? Lee was asked who was the best Soldier he ever had under his command. Lee said "although I have never met the man it was Forrest. Guess that answers the question.
Ah, Mr. Sherrick, glad to see you could make it. You kinda left your buddy "lil joe d." hanging on that other video about Grant's opinion of Lee after the war? That's no way for a mentor to behave. You know he has a self-esteem issue. Shame. And you didn't respond to my challenge...hmm...kind of funny that you called someone here out for "insinuating" Forrest was a coward. So, now that we're both done slumming, let's get to it shall we? Forrest absolutely DID NOT POSTPONE? the war in the West for a year by single handedly keeping the Union AOC from advancing on Chattanooga! I kind of think the CSA AOT had a little to do with that? And I guarantee Bragg would disagree! And you seem to be forgetting (not surprising for a "lost causer") there was a general named US GRANT who captured 3 entire armies during the war along with ALL their equipment and supplies! Roughly about 70,000 men! "Forrest always showed the enemy a dare"? What does that mean? I think the word you were looking for is "bluff." In fact you do use it correctly later? I think "lil joe" needs to find a more literate and more knowledgeable mentor. You guys really need to quit using your GROSSLY inaccurate "lost cause" source materials and study real acceptable historical fact, especially on the CW! Oh, and that was an awfully cute anecdote at the end. By the way, Lee was a traitor (in his own words) and a loser. I'm not going to put too much stock in a comment he made AFTER the war! Looking forward to your reply, IF YOU'RE UP TO IT! Ta Ta. Oh, say hi to "lil joe" for me. He doesn't seem to come round much anymore?
Anyone could have accomplished the same as Forrest. A 12,000 man Cavarly force by total commands in the Western Theatre gave the CSA a huge advantage. If Van Dorn had joined it would have ballooned by 7,000 more. The U.S. Army was 4,500 strong in comparison.
@@USGrant-rr2byI just now saw your comment from 3 years ago. General John R. Scales wrote a Book The Battles and Campaigns Of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He explicitly explained how Forrest caused the war to last a year longer than it would have without him. You are right Forrest bluffed a few of his opponents. Strieght surrender on Forrest's Bluff. Forrest was dogging him so much over a few days. Forrest always kept the fear or scare on Union Troops. Also Forrest Bluffed a Union General in Murfreesboro by having his men and Artillery Marching in a Circle at the Top of the Hill. The Union General asked Forrest how much Artillery do you have? Forrest replied I reckon that is all that has been able to keep up. So read the book I suggested and you will understand how Forrest caused the war to last a year longer than it would have without Forrest. I just don't make stuff up. And you are the typical person that always says facts that come from the Southern Side are always called Lost Cause Mythology. You people need to come up with something different. I wrote a comment without giving the reference just to see people like you to call it Lost Cause Mythology. I got a few back and I laughed my ass off. It was Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. The Lincoln taught is a lie and a myth.
@@scottgoens7575Forrest man count was different at many Battles. All you did was affirm Forrest. That is being smart showing up with the most and using that to a benefit. Jackson did it time after time in the Shenandoah. Also study Forrest against Sturgis's at Brices Crossroads. Talking about a under dog win. 30% of Sturgis's Army had new Carbine and Repeating Rifles. Forrest routed Sturgis's. Forrest outnumbered in Calvary 5 to 1 and Infrantry 4 to 1. Forrest used the weather against Sturgis's and used the land because Forrest was a natural at Topography. Forrest did get reinforcements late in the day but he already had Sturgis on the run. You can say what you want about Forrest but he was cunning. Why do you think Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said I don't care if it cost 10,000 men and it breaks the Treasury to get that Devil Forrest. Sherman said after the war that Forrest was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Those are Forrest's Peers from the Union. I guess you know more about how great Forrest wasn't than those two General's that had to deal with Forrest. Go get Sturgis's Quotes about Forrest. He if Forrest will leave me alone, I will leave him alone. Also General John R. Scales wrote a great book on Forrest. The Title is The Battles And Campaigns Of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest is third in line of having the most Literature written about him than any other Civil War Figure. Forrest is only behind Lincoln and Lee. Leaders that aren't great don't have that many people writing about them.
Affirm Forrest's man count? I affirmed he was in battle, in friendly territory, with total logistical support anywhere he went, with the best intelligence anywhere he went. Not much effort needed in contrast to his enemies. Furthermore second rate officers (such as Samuel Sturgis), units on fatigue duty, and small logistics supply hubs were Forrest's opposition. A feat anyone could have accomplished. Sturgis and the U.S. Army (see Rosecrans mobility issues in the Tullahoma campaign because of lack of horses) had a very poor grade of horses and not enough horses (to which he grabbed mules.) Even with mules he lost so many mounts in his ill fated ride that at many points they were at a standstill. It's kind of easy to plan attacks if your Forrest. Forrest took the bait hook line and sinker going after (Sturgis) as Grant intended. He maneuvered on Vicksburg free of any harassment by Forrest in Forrest area of jurisdiction. A failure of Forrest's of epic proportion. (He was operating in Wheelers area.) As for topography Forrest had the greatest local intelligence that allowed him to put it to use. (Unlike his opponent.) He did put this to great use against Sturgis. Being that Sturgis stayed on the main road all the way to the ambush point. All the soldiers Sturgis had with him were green as the Veterans were on Furlow. The only Veterans among them were the USCT troops that bloodied Forrest's nose as a rear guard during the flight. Grant never said he feared Forrest, that is Forrest idol worship gone wrong. Find me the primary source. Not just I read it in a blog type stuff. Sherman was pissed at incompetence of second rate soldiers not able to track Forrest down. The Cincinnati Enquirer liked to sensationalize Sherman to it's Democratic readerships delight. Sherman hated newspapers so you have the context wrong. Sherman had a chance meeting with Forrest on a train during Forrest's political stumping. So it was not really by chance. With newspaper reporters present the question put Sherman on the spot with his tour of the South. (Atlanta welcomed him with open arms for an entire week.) Again, history out of context on your part. I know General John R. Scales from forums. His sources come directly from the line of John Allen Wyeth copycats. His book is more of a military history side so it is more palatable. If you want a better look at Forrest read Jack Hurst for the good and bad, simply the man. All other books just regurgitate the same old shite. @@kurtsherrick2066
I've become interested in Civil War history. I have a basic understanding of the Western campaign timeline but not so much what took place in the Eastern campaign. What would be your suggestion to a better overall knowledge of the Army of Virginia and the timeline it took from beginning to the end of the war? Good work here, keep it up. Thanks...MG
I would recommend the books written by Jeff Shaara. His father, Michael Shaara ,wrote "The Killer Angels." Which the movie Gettysburg is based. Upon his father's death, Jeff took over writing similar books. They are novelizations of the civil war based on the journals and historical records of the era. Covering the war in the East was Gods and Generals, The Killer Angels and Last Full Measure. The books in the West are A Blaze of Glory, A Chain of Thunder, The Smoke at Down and The Fateful Lightening. It's a brilliant way to get a feel for the history of the war in a novelisation. Sometimes I find reading straight history gets to be tedious. When I find parts that intrigue me then I will find history books written covering those parts of the war. The books give equal balance to both Union and Confederate generals and soldiers. He does a fair and balanced story on both sides without getting bogged down into politics and 20th/21st century feelings on the Civil War. He pretty much sticks to the facts of what happened and tries to get a little inside the head of the participants. The Western Theater books cover from Shilo, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and so on thru Shermans March to the sea. You get perspectives of the western Generals like Albert Sidney Johnston, Braxton Bragg, and Forrest. On the other side you get Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans and Thomas. Plus some soldiers in the ranks and in the last book you get the POV of a freed slave following Shermans march.
Hey! Could you do a versus between Lieutenant-Generals Longstreet and Jackson for their roles as infantry corps commanders? Or Major Generals Ewell and A.P. Hill as divisional commanders?
Forrest lost another horse at Fort Pillow....he was returning from his raid on Paducah Ky. and a group of his men who had not made the trip were supposed to be waiting near Fort Pillow had instead began the attack on the Fort and the Fort commander had caught a bullet....Forrest told them to stop while he rode around looking at the terrain when his horse apparently was shot in the head and dropped like a rock trapping Forrest's leg underneath so that some men had to lift the horse and free him. The numbers I have seen are Forrest killed 30 of them and they killed 29 of Forrest's horses. Deo Vindice.
I love Jeb Stuart. But didn't know the background I Nathan Bedford Forrest. This was extremely enlightening. And this is coming from a Yankee born and raised on Long Island. I've been in Florida for 30 yrs now. And always felt I've been a southern boy. Not racist in any way. Just southern in nature.
Forrest and Stuart were men of their upbringing. What gives Forest such an edge was the fact that he was raised with that frontiersman mindset. You do whatever you have to in order to survive.
Forrest was the best battlefield tactician I’ve have ever heard of and with next to no education that’s saying something! He was a brilliant man he had 29 horses shout out from under him ! He had no fear and his bushcraft he learned at young age won many battles.
CNN would NEVER admit it, but it's the way we fought the 1st. Gulf War. "Attack um frum both ways, en puts the scare on um!" Quote: N.B. Forrest.@@Republic4ever714
His tactics were basic, but basic works; on the other hand his intelligence network was outstanding... that was the difference maker.
@@Republic4ever714
EXACTLY!
Well he didn't go to West Point.@@Republic4ever714
I agree with your assessment. Far too often, formally trained military leaders become captive to their training, while talented neophytes can exercise unorthodox strategies, unconstrained by preconceptions.
Although what you say is true, I believe Stuart did fight Indians previously.
I think Stuart was far more of a traditional Cavalry commander whereas Forrest was easily a forerunner of our modern Special Forces. His ability to adapt and make something out of nothing was very impressive.
Couldn't agree more
This is not even close Forrest was far superior. Robert E Lee stated this himself.
@@TURTLES_FOR_LIFEEE There's no evidence that Lee ever said any such thing. Lee never served with Forrest and was thus in no position to evaluate Forrest first- hand. Moreover, Lee was never the type of individual to say that this or that person was the best at anything. Saying that was tantamount to saying that others were not the equal of "the best"- and Lee was well known for his tactful consideration of others.
@@TURTLES_FOR_LIFEEE stupid comment they never served together and fought in different theatres of the war read a book before lying
@@bcb5696 after war lee mentioned that he never met forrest but that from reports he had seen he said that he was best confederate general,more best us general on both sides
As a native Virginian from the Shenandoah valley I must admit that as much as I like Stuart personally as a true dashing cavalier and southern gentleman I tend to think Forrest was a better fighter and leader. He had some partisan fighter ways which well suited the western theatre plus he enlisted as a private at the start of the war but at the end he was a lieutenant general. I also like his development as a man after the war. He denounced the very ku klux klan that he had helped to form because of its violent extremist terrorist activities and after a religious conversion to christianity under the preaching of Sam Jones the southern methodist evangelist and pastor of the union gospel tabernacle in Nashville (now the Ryman auditorium) he began to encourage racial harmony and reconciliation between blacks and whites
No he didn't denounce the KKK. According to his chief Artillery officer and first Exalted Cyclops John W Morton, that according to the Klan, he disbanded it because they :redeemed" six states from negro rule. But in reality Forrest probably disbanded it as convictions were at an all time high under the enforcement Acts. Check out Morton's book.
My Great Grandfather, a partisan, life was saved by Bedford at Thompson's Station but the brave General lost his favorite horse "Roderick" in doing so. The Alabama Partisan Rangers shouted out "Hurrah for the Texans!"
Stuart was Military trained and that is the reason for his inability to adapt and Forrest was self taught that I think was why I would lean towards Forrest! Great video and keep them coming
NBF was a slave trader. No fvcks given. Dangerous man. Thank God the morally-challenged South lost.
Greatest commanders on history? These two? How on earth do these two blundering supremacists even get considered?
The Russians studied NBF's tactics in raiding and used them against the Germans during WWII. They towed light artillery and heavy machine guns with their horses and hit German supply depots and rear areas. NBF was a Cavalry Commander ahead of his time in many ways.
@robertswanson7301 and you know this how? Maybe they were copying Van Dorn's tactics if at all? Russians only had lend/lease trucks so horses had to be used in that mud
Not even close...
It was "said" that Erwin Rommel studied Forrest's tactics and even visited Brice's Crossroads, (I live 10 minutes from the battlefield, my land sits on the battle of tupelo Mississippi's action of July 14/15,1864)
Rommel did not visit Brice's Crossroads, but he may very well have studied his (Forrest tactics) and used them in North Afrika, so it wasn't the Russians @ all.
HAHAHA, I call bullshit.
After the war, Lee was asked,”who was your greatest general”? He answered,”a man I never met, Nathan Bedford Forest”.
No proof that quote is real
@@inthedarkwoods2022 I just performed a level 3 fact check........results: the quote is authentic.
@@turkfebruary5836 Yes, Lee stated this in public.
Wow! I never knew this. I wonder if they ever met AFTER the war?
Lee loved Forrest, just from all he heard about his exploits...
Stuart served under a great commander. Forrest had mediocre commanders. What if Forrest , instead of Stuart had commanded the Confederate cavalry during the Gettysburg campaign ?
Forrest personally shoots George Armstrong Custer at Cavalry Field
Forrest had some BAD commanders
I don't think Forrest would have let Lee down at Gettysburg
before during or after
@@manuelkong10 Stuart was " the eyes of my army " ( General Lee ). He lost contact with the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia at the beginning of the Gettysburg campaign , and took valuable time away , by capturing and herding a Federal Supply Wagon Train over to Lee. By the time he reached the battlefield , two days of fighting had gone by , and the Army of the Potomac was firmly entrenched. The third day began , Lee ordered Gen. Pickett to attack ... and that was it. A commander of Forrest's caliber - arguably - would have not lost touch with the army's main body. It is interesting to note , how cavalry commanders played a crucial role in this battle : John Buford's cavalry corps held up Heth's infantry attacks , until Reynolds send infantry to support him. The bluecoat troopers , heavily outnumbered and outgunned , did a remarkable job.
That's something to think about? Forrest at Gettysburg?
@@fundamentos3439 read Mosby's Memoirs. He in great detail explains how Stuart complied with General Lee's orders verbatim.
As a former Cavalry scout in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment both of those men were the soldiers I looked up to and wanted to imitate even though I'm from Ohio🤠. Scouts out!
Thanks for your service.🇺🇸
My Papa was 3rd Armored one of the Ghosts of Pattons Army in ww2 he was in a reconnaissance company that made maps behind enemy lines. Thanks man
@@richieb1684 awesome! We, the Cavalry, are the eyes and ears watching for the enemy and now it's a spiritual warfare being waged and I'm still a scout but for Christ now🗡🙏
@@knightoftheimmaculata8876 Man u ain't lying !!!!
"Knight"....you need to recalibrate your perspective regarding these two traitors.....
I agree with your conclusion about Gen. Jeb Stuart, only thing I could ask is that I found this comparison so enlightening a perspective. Please do more
I surely will. Thank you so much. I appreciate all the views. Please consider subscribing.
The way cavalry was used in the different theaters makes a difference. Stuart was pretty much tied to Lee for most of his career. The western cavalry commanders operated more often as independent units.
God i'm loving this, all you guys know what you're talking about. BRAVO!
I thought the Cavalry in the Army of The Potomac operated ad it's own independent Cavalry Corp's?
@@rc59191 later in the war, yes
I find forrest the most interesting to read about..Did it all himself..feeding his family at 16..
@Frederick Wells let’s not forget Forrest freed his slaves whether the south would’ve won or not and he also spoke out about equality for black people even speaking at their functions. I know it hurts you to know that black people loved Forrest , Davis, Jackson and Lee. Have a good day 😁
Are you SURE it was Forrest? I always heard he was the Grand Wizard of the KKK, but I could be wrong.@@southernlogger2307
This is a tough one, and not something I've really thought of before. I kind of looked at them as broadly similar but who fought in different regions during the war. Different circumstances etc.
I would have gone with Forrest purely because I don't think he ever lost his head and committed serious blunders like Stuart did. Possibly was a bit more practical and not quite the prideful and carrying on the affectation of the southern cavalier/knight whatever.
I think that when things would go pear shaped Forrest was better at (as you said) adapting and extricating himself from bad situations.
Yeah, I think I need to do more reading on this.
Finding out that I am talking to someone with a PHD in this field is giving me performance anxiety.
Thank you so much for commenting. I agree with you. It was so tough because these men were excellent commanders and Stuart's scouting ability just astounds me. When I read about how he set up his perimeter around Lee's Army, he was a genius in his own right. I will have my PhD hopefully in December. I have finished all of my course work and am currently writing my dissertation. 2 Chapters down and 4 to go. Thank you again for your support.
@@HistoryGoneWilder Thank You Sir for the research. Love It!
The problem with Stuart was that he was fighting against his former West Point class mates & dorm. buddies. Even though he did not join in, some of the officers would gather after battle and drink whiskey and play cards together.
On the other hand, Mississippi boy Forrest didn't care much for the Yankee elite.
Ain't war Hell!
Forrest made plenty of mistakes. He even got his butt kicked by Black USCT soldiers at Paducah. At Chickamauga he failed consistently. Read "Failure in the Saddle" of the shortcomings of both Wheeler and Forrest.
Both Sherman and Robert E. Lee were asked after the war who was the best general in the Civil War (from both sides). Both answered without hesitation... Nathan Bedford Forrest.
I would say both those men were purposely discluding themselves so as to not seem vain.
Sherman called Forrest the Devil !
@@Bravesdarrell8552 a slave trader in misery and extreme cruelty a devil in deed.
@@humanchannel1569 what does that have to do with his military ability?
Actually, ir was General S. D. Lee who chose Forrest....S. D. Lee was in the west and knew Forrest. Deo Vindice.
It is a tough comparison to make, they fought 2 very different wars. I agree with your conclusion however it must be mentioned, Forest didn't get on well with superior officers a lot of the time, true the superiors he had out west where lackluster in ability at best. Stuart got on well with his superiors. Could they have switched roles and been successful?
I read in a civil war book a few years back that at wars end Forest's army was outfittet with Union horses, saddles, utensils, rifles, rations everything pretty much even blue uniforms dyed black, to do that you gotta be sharp
Another passage from a book I remember is one of his west point officers being angry that he never takes his advice, Forest reply was, you are here to tell me what the west point handbook says so we can do something else. If it is 100% true who knows, Forest did not write very well and not very often
Great video pal
I love these high quality videos you make. I also would recommend an analysis of two other great cavalry commanders from the Confederate side: Wade Hampton and Jo Shelby. Wade Hampton was not only Stuart's most trustworthy lieutenant, but would come into his own as an exceptional cavalry commander when he took over the Army of Northern Virginia's Cavalry Corps after Stuart's death and when, in a last gasp effort, Hampton reshaped the cavalry forces of General Joseph Eggleston Johnston's rag-tag army. Shelby would command the legendary "Iron Brigade," the one that fought in the Trans-Mississippi West, and later a division, forces from which he would highlight his exceptional military skills.
LOVED your video!!! Thank you
I'm so happy to hear that. Please check out my other videos. I think you will enjoy them.
Since you said we could request any era I would love to hear a comparison of Patton and MacArthur..
I second that motion. But let's throw Guderian, Rommel, De Gaulle, and Krivoshein, all great tank guys in that WW2 matchup.
@@FultonEagle1948 Would be extremely interesting:but next to impossible;as it would take a life-time to collect the correct,unbiased facts!
@@pebo8306 You're right, I don't think unbiased facts can ever be eliminated, but a 1 on 1 comparison might suffice.
@@FultonEagle1948 Comparison must be based on facts,and that's the culprit.After I read Dr.Roman Töppel's (Prokhorovka: Chances of a German Breakthrough?) work on the tank battle of Kursk/Prokhorovka, I am very disillusioned about any claim,any Senior officer or any government made! (No,the Germans did not loose 1500 tanks in three,days;as they did not have that many,to begin with;that's a lie Soviet commanders created,to justify their own losses to Stalin!)
@@pebo8306 OH! I certainly agree, it's hard for real historians to break through all of the crap out there. Just have to dig even deeper.
Great video and a fair analysis. Like you, I am a PhD candidate with a focus on military history. I have always seen Stuart as more traditional in that he operated best within the framework of a larger organization, no doubt due to his background. Forrest, on the other hand, had no training and was therefore more flexible, hence his success as a raider and his difficulties operating under the command structure of a larger army. I wrote a paper while working on my MA evaluating Forrest at Brice's Crossroads in terms of Clausewitz's definition of the military genius. I think he came out pretty well.
IMO has to be Bedford Forrest even with NO military training !! Unlikely, yes but he proved time and time again, he was a very capable and wiley general.
God Bless
The wizard of the saddle!
100% pure Intuition, from Private all the way to Lieutenant General.
6ft 3
@@chloroxbleach8561 a knight of chivalry, & protector of women.
War is fighting, and fighting is killing.
Yep.....education is for those numberless souls who aren't blessed with natural born talent. Of course, Forrest could have been even greater with a West Point education but he was a maestro.......the Mozart of American military history. Born to command men and destroy his opposition. He was just never given the resources to make a real strategic difference. Possibly the greatest single command fault of the South.
@@chloroxbleach8561he was a beast of a man
Lee when asked the question said Forrest was the best commander of the war.
If Forrest had had command of the Army of Tennessee, I believe it would have had more and a lot more success in all it's campaigns.
@@wadehampton1737 Brother..if ANYONE had command of the Army of Tennessee, it would have been awesome..I was leaning toward Claiborne..whom Lee called the Shining Star of the Confederate Armies..
Forrest was not a born warrior. Jeb was....just saying
@@rodneyward8357 Forrest didn't have military training it came natural to him. We don't know what Stuart would have been like without it. Stuart was a graduate of West Point. that seems to be the reverse of what you are saying.
@@jimbuford4147 Forrest was a great general. Yes was a natural. I should have worded it different. Jeb knew union doctrine. Most military men in the south had been in the union army. Forrest was a common sense get it done as we in the south are known for. Military training does not guarantee a great leader either. Both I think were a credit to their units and the Army of the C.S.A.
Interesting rating of the two men. However, I heard on a National Park Service vid, that Forrest had 34 confirmed kills, saber and sword.. He was always at the head of his troops. They had a hard time keeping up w/ him. I'm amazed he survived the war. Are there any similar stats on JEB Stuart?
That is if you believe it. This was an estimation by Forrest himself after the war in the newspapers of Memphis drumming up political support. Sure he killed men, he did it all his life. Some confirmed but not all.
Very much agree with your assessment 👏 I hate seeing what has happened to Forest
I always felt like Stuart was the Indy car of calvary generals where as Forrest was more the NASCAR style of general. Stuart was a rapier where Forrest was a cutlass. I love metaphores.
Stuart had the advantage of having a highly competent commander in Lee. I think Stuart got caught up in the mythology of himself and Lee. He got caught up because the Army of Northern Virginia was invincible as long as Lee was leading them. This arrogance lead to his absence for the first 2 days at Gettysburg and losing some respect from Lee. These things led to his eventual death at Yellow Tavern.
Forrest had to deal with men like Bragg and later Hood. Hood was well past his prime by the time he took over as commanding General. I feel like Forrest could have been more dangerous and then he was if he had a general like Lee commanding him. Forrest was at his best when he was operating independently from the Army as a scout and raider.
Hood rose above his level of competence when he was promoted above brigade command. He was as brave as a bulldog but had about the same intelligence. Forrest spoke to him in an extremely harsh manner following Hood's disastrous leadership at the Battle of Franklin. Forrest, who had a natural genius for combat, also read the riot act to Bragg (who, incidentally, is thought by some to have been the Confederacy's worst general).
@@billstory8034 Yes if I remember correctly after Franklin, Forrest told him if he was more of a man he would shoot him dead. Something like that.
Forrest did have a competent superior in the west, Joseph E. Johnston. Johnston was the only Confederate general to see the war in terms of the big picture. While others like Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Bragg, Hood, Stuart, and Hill were obsessing over tactics, Johnston was thinking of how to outlast the Union. The only way for the Confederacy to win a long war of attrition was if Johnston was General-in-Chief of all Confederate forces, which knowing how much Jefferson Davis hated him, was very unlikely.
As in many wars, politics rules. Gen. Bragg was a buddy of Pres. Davis.@@BradanKlauer-xh3hm
Stuart made Lee better. Forrest made Bragg worse. Communication was the key. Stuart kept Lee and all others informed consistently. Forrest did not work well with others. Always at odds with other officers and never sending runners about his intentions or the enemies once he was engaged.
This Video reminded me of one of the reasons I got interested in the CW in the first place. I always liked to play "war" with my buddies (10yrs old). It was always WWII though. Then I started reading the comic book GI Combat in the 70s. It usually had an episode of the "Haunted Tank". The commander's name was Lt. Jeb Stuart and he commanded a Stuart light tank in Africa. The tank was haunted by....JEB Stuart, the dashing cavalier! I loved it. So I started reading everything about the CW I could get my hands on, and that passion has been with me for my entire life! I even got a friggin degree in it. Ah, the good old days......
What's funny about this is that up here in Canada I had the exact same experience.
I to loved that comic, the stuart connection was the coolest part of the storyline.
@@FultonEagle1948 Yes. But unfortunately I had to find out later he was fighting for an immoral EVIL cause! Still liked the comic, but it kind of put a damper on it for me.
@@USGrant-rr2by Both. GI Combat was here in Canada too, and my friends and I used to pretend we were US Marines and dirt lumps were hand grenades. It never even occurred to us to say 'Wait a sec, this is Canada'. We didn't think about that as kids.
Stuart was to the cavalry as Admiral Beatty was to the battle cruiser fleet in World War I. They completely forgot in their most important engagement (Gettysburg for Stuart, Jutland for Beatty) that their primary function was to be the eyes of the main force. In addition, Stuart, like Custer, was impulsive. I vote (solely on military grounds) for Forrest.
Forrest paled in comparison to Stuart in communication. You pick one incident over Stuarts stellar career, something that the Yankee's had a lot to do with.
Can you do General John Hunt Morgan and General Joseph “Joe” Wheeler. This was a great video I will be sharing it to many people.
Thank you so much.
Yes, that would b good. R Joe Shelby against Forrest r Stewart.
I second that. General Joseph Joe Wheeler has never got the press that he so richly deserved. He fought in the Civil War and with the Rough Riders. Roosevelt is who most people think of when they think of the Rough Riders but the then very old Wheeler played an integral part.
@@HistoryGoneWilder All those Generals would be great, to do in my opinion. Love it if Wheeler came up soon.
Can you do a video on John Singleton Mosby
Excellent analysis! I agree with all of your points, but would appreciate a more in-depth approach. Such a topic begs for both more specific detail and a broader scope. This was the perfect topic to begin such a series, and I enjoyed it immensely. However, it would have been more satisfying with a longer format.
I completely agree that I need to be more in depth. However, I'm hesitant about putting out too long of a video because through the analytics less people watch to the end. So I tried to include specific examples in this video to give the viewer the best possible idea of what points I was trying to make. Thank you so much for watching. If you haven't already, please subscribe and share the videos.
@@HistoryGoneWilder As a long-time subscriber, I understand your dilemma. (Is thirty minutes too long/is fifteen minutes too short?) Go with your gut. I give programs to local history groups and always worry about going too long, myself. Keep up the good work!
Absolutely, I have found, my college students need to cycle through topics faster to not dwell too long on a subject and lose their attention.
Love your channel, keep up the good work.
Grant vs Meade NEEEEEDS done. Absolutely need it. Jackson vs Longstreet. George Thomas vs Sherman... I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE all these videos. Patton vs McArthur would be nice as well. If Grant vs Meade wasnt so crucially NEEDED, Id say Grant vs Thomas. Could compare both Johnston's. Albert Sydney vs Joe.
George Thomas was the closest thing the North had to a Lee . He was good at what he did . Sherman was fast , that was his best attribute . He was able to take a lot of men and push them somewhere fast . My money is on Thomas , he just seemed to fight a lot more actual battles . Sherman fought guerrillas , a tired shambles of an army of course his most hated enemy , buildings .
Stuart may have a slight advantage in that he was a Corps commander while NBF was a Divisional commander. Where it counts Stuart even commanded an infantry corps to add to his repertoire. However Forrest's horsemen appeared to be somewhat better and his tactics were out of the norm.
A good comparison would be placing Forrest against William Quantrill or against William Anderson in single combat. It would be a good question of who had the better horsemen between the two of them.
Great comparison.
As Stuart is better at scouting and have a military background , I think he suits serving in a large army than Forrest.
Forrest should become a legend as an independent commander with a small army, free to move and do anything to survive and damage enemy. And he did :)
Excellent video and presentation. Please do more like this.
I think you are spot on as Forrest did more without as much help from the infantry and artillery out west except for General Patrick Cleburne. Stuart let his ego override his sensibility and helped cost Lee the battle of Gettysburg. Forrest remained a thorn in the Union Army until surrendering at the end of the war. I would like to see a video comparing General Patrick Cleburne and General Stonewall Jackson. Enjoyed your comparison.
I wish Cleburne would have been over the army of Tennessee. Franklin would have never happened and so many brave men wouldn’t lost their lives that sad day.
One of them being Cleburne.@@JimbobZ17
@@billstory8034 we lost 6 generals that sad day.
Another great video. You should do one about revolutionary general’s. Like Lord Cornwallis (who was their best battlefield general) vs Nathaniel Greene (who was an out of the box thinker who figured out how to use militia to devastating effect and the only general Cornwallis feared).
I'm liking you guys on the site more & more. Yes let's see & hear some Glorious Cause.
@@FultonEagle1948 How did you learn of this site?
@@FultonEagle1948 Hey, you never responded. How did you learn of this site?
Nathaniel Greene vs. Daniel Morgan
I found this video very interesting. Two men a great flare and ability. Thanks
Based on what you said in the video, this may be a case where no military training actually helped Forrest. It sounds like he thought more out of the box where Stuart couldn't or wouldn't change from the "correct" military tactics he learned at West Point.
Spot on!
JEB had the better beard by far..
True
@@FultonEagle1948 Not. But is more well know because he served Robert E Lee. Lee after the war stated Forrest was the best General in public.
Yes, but not as good as the late Dusty Hill.
Yeah...better dressed, too...red-lined cape, plume in his cap, etc., etc.I'm pretty sure that he's the one that bought a new uniform for Stonewall Jackson...just to "dress him up" a bit(lol)!
JEB Stuart was a true Cavalier, on the other hand, Bedford from Mississippi could be a real mean SOB when he wanted to be!
Great video as usual...a fascinating comparison and yes I’m sure it could easily have been several hours long and I would have watched it! I’m currently re-reading Dee Brown’s 1954 classic “Grierson’s Raid” and I think Col. Grierson deserves at least an honorable mention. He lacked Stuart’s training and Forrest’s ferocity, but for a guy who was a music teacher with a deep-seated fear of horses I’d say he did his country proud.
I just watched "The Horse Soldiers" again a week ago!! A John Wayne movie based on Grierson's Raid! It is one of my top 10 CW movies. And, it actually does a fairly decent job(as movies go) conveying where and why and how the raid took place , minus the drama. My only real problem with it is people in the movie keep mentioning getting sent to Andersonville, when Andersonville didn't even exist(may 1863)yet! I'm sure you know, Grierson stayed in the Army after the war, retiring as a Brig. General.
When Forrest was making life miserable for him in Georgia, W T Sherman said it would be worth 10,000 men and bankrupting the treasury to kill Forrest. After the war, Sherman said Forrest was the most remarkable man produced by the war on either side. Case closed.
Excellent! Mosby-Jackson-Cleburne-Forrest-Armistead-Stuart and Morgan Fighting Joe , Shelby and Rosser. So many great warriors! Bloody bill as well, like Nathan Bedford Forrest much maligned. Rebel Yell! So many great soldiers.
Shelby Foote said the Civil War produced such geniuses. Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest. That was from Ken Burns Civil War series. I believe that Forrest and Stuart were great generals who struck without warning. Jeb Stuart was like Prince Rupert. A cavalier. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great example of how he would make his eye on the ground around him and launch his raids in enemy territory.
However, Foote was a storyteller rather than a historian. He was also a Confederate apologist and a lost cause romantic. His trying to place Forrest on the intellectual level of Lincoln was simply absurd. It's regrettable Burns allowed his masterpiece to be skewed by the anecdotal musings of Foote.
If Forest was a genius, he was an evil one. He never took on a battle hardened enemy and would wait for the main army and fighting to pass then he would sneak in and attack the supplies, butchering the poorly trained and poorly equipped troops guarding them.
@@dalemeade4660 I beg to differ: only a fool would want a fair fight. If you're going to fight, you use every advantage you can to deal the most damage to the enemy.
The object to win; you might try to remember that. Forrest did plenty of that.@@dalemeade4660
Where's the evil in that? And, by the way, Forrest's conduct of Brice's Crossroads is widely acknowledged one of the most flawlessly-conducted "small army" battles in American military history. Forrest was a realist trying to advance as best he could -- within the parameters he recognized himself constrained by -- for his country. He was no Virginia gentleman; he was hardscrabble from his cavalry boots to his campaign kepi. But he outfought virtually all the Virginians, and there was one personage not yet mentioned who, after the war, wondered "what if" about Forrest -- Jefferson Davis. @@dalemeade4660
Just found your excellent Channel & subbed up.
Good Points taken.... but I'm sittin on this one.... you'll never see me say anything against JEB.
My Mom's family were with the 7th Virginia Inf....Were burned out & escaped to Canada in 65'.
Needless to say, I've been intrigued since I was a kid.
Great vid and as a yankee decendant(24th michigan), Forrest has always fascinated me. There is something very American about the ability to start as a private and end the war as a Lt. General based on merit alone. Btw, if I had one critique, it's the constant pronouncing of cavalry as calvary. work on it. otherwise, your content is top notch.
I hate that pronunciation too. I apologize. I make it a point to say cavalry, but when I get excited when talking I will slip and say calvary. I know exactly what you are saying.
Have History Will Travel have a Christian upbringing? Those of us who do tend to make that mistake often because of “Calvary” in the Biblical narrative. I do that very same thing.
@@dalemeade4660 Lol I'm Catholic so I do get it. But I am also a descendent of a civil war vet so the pronunciation of cavalry/calvary has been an irritant since I was a wee lad. I'm glad I broke that chain long ago. I was going to mention the Christian connection in my original post but I thought It might be a little tacky. Have History Will Travel has been great content during the lockdown and easily much better than anything on TV.
Excellent analysis, adaptability is critical for any form of command. I don't suppose you could analyze civil war naval history could you?
Very good information. My bias is Forrest due to his ability to innovate. Additionally, he disobeyed the surrender order at Ft. Donelson and led his men out of the fort at night to avoid captivity.
I would also add that Forrest was much more ruthless when dealing with the enemy than Stuart. Stuart trained as a chivalrous commander at West Point, Forrest just wanted to win and did some not so nice things with prisoners to keep himself and his men alive.
He ate them?
@@thevoid4060 One record says he through a Union soldier on the back of his horse when riding away from the enemy so any bullets that came his way would hit his "prisoner."
Forrest looked at war much the same way that Sherman did, as well as General Patton of WW2.
@@idontcare1762 That's the first right thing I've ever heard you say. I guess there is hope for you relics. Who knew?
'to keep his men alive' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow#Massacre
Agree with your conclusion- but was surprised that you didn't mention Stuart's complete failure to follow Lee's orders and go off "joy riding" at Gettysburg- probably the single most important factor in Lee's defeat there...
Why don't YOU tell me what Lee's actual orders to Stuart were before the campaign began? Also, what about the orders he got from Longstreet?
Forrest's overall effect on Union Operations, tips the scale for me. His raids on Grants supply lines 1863, was the major factor in getting Grant to change his axis of attack from N. Miss (by land) and shift to the Miss. River as his axis of attack to take Vicksburg, which delayed Grant for a year. He also commanded all parts (infantry, artillery, cavalry) as one combined unit, Stuart did not (cavalry only). Forrest's down side was his relations with his superiors.
@3idraven714 The battle at Vicksburg was May to July 1863. To what years delay do you refer? Seems most folks credit Forrest for raiding and burning Grant's depot at Holly Springs, MS, in December 1862, when this was actually Van Dorn's action, in which Forrest took part. We can rewrite history IF we tell a good enough story
@@jimrichardson3078 Van Dorn was a P@ssy, got shot BECAUSE of P@ssy, Forrest was in the saddle, leading the charge, F@ck Whimp Van Dorn, he GOT what he deserved, a cowards death. You change the History, cause History says Van Dorn WAS a P@ssy, and Forrest was MOST definately not.
So true, Forrest threatened to kill Gen. Bragg and got away with it.
I love Civil War history and believe Nathan Bedford Forrest was not only the best General in the Civil War, but American History. He was constantly outnumbered and constantly won until he took on the repeating rifles. Great video.
There was this guy, Ulysses S. Grant. He was a general. He actually won the entire war.
You've been itching to have a debate with someone on here, this is your chance?
@@USGrant-rr2by Not likely. There's no debating this point.
@@davemoore8517 There would be if he really believed it.....He would just have to bring the debate down to a micro-level. Seeing as Forrest never got the chance for high command, most likely stemming from the fact he wasn't a West pointer. Which, judging by his feats, would set him apart. He could compare Grant's plan, tactics and execution at Belmont or Ft. Donaldson to Forrest's plan, tactics, and execution at say 1st Murfreesboro or Brice's Crossroads? And he could point out how Forrest was studied by the German generals of WWII. Was Grant? I'm not sure, and I know Grant like my middle name is Grant (it is). He could talk about how Forrest accomplished so much with so little and with a much lower casualty rate, compared to Grant. He could have brought up the fact that the 3 acknowledged greatest generals of the CW all said that Forrest was the best general that came out of the war..........just sayin.
@@USGrant-rr2by Well, there's a lot there to unpack. And I'm tempted to not take the bait. First, there's nothing in NBF's tactical or operational performance that would indicate he would have been set apart in overall command. You say "high command" but I think you mean "overall command." He ranked "high command" as lieutenant gen by end of war, but he affected no measurable change in outcome. There's no scholarly study of the supposition of his having overall command of infantry, artillery, & cav (scholarly is the keyword).
Yet there's volumes about USG's actual tactical performance and his successful leverage into operational and strategic command. His development of tempo and maneuver ushered in the era of modern warfare and his methods are still studied today at the US Army War College and all military academies. Please read this: ehistory.osu.edu/articles/us-grant-and-operations-0
Further, I find in my research a myth about German generals studying CSA generals, but no actual evidence of it. I would love to be better informed by being shown scholarly evidence. Lastly, who are these greatest generals of the CW who said this of NBF? I know Lee said as much. But I'm hoping you're not referring to WTS and USG as the other two? Please. Educate me, my friend!
Shelby Foot answered that question. NBF.
@Tim Smith Foote wasn't related. He was friends with one of Nathan's grand daughters, who let him swing his saber around.
I wouldn’t argue with Mr. Foote, his three volume set of books on the War are classic. But I wonder what tactics Stuart is supposed to not have adapted too? I might also wonder how they would of done as Corp commanders rather than small (by comparison) Calvary units? One cannot fault either man when it comes to courage and willingness to engage an enemy. As to Gettysburg, let’s be very fair, General Lee’s plan was to go to Harrisburg, not Gettysburg, so Stuart was simply outpacing the army under Lee. I might also wonder, we’re there not enough Calvary to provide screening even without Stuart? I think the criticism of Stuart is more influenced by television than research. Continued good fortune in your studies on the great leaders of the Civil War.
Great video! I agree with your assessment. The lack of formal military training gave Forrest a handicap but he made up the difference with common sense back woods logic.
John Singleton Mosby might have something to say about this
Another good video on your superb channel. NBF all the way. Regards from Scotland
The comparison is a little trickier in that Stuart participated in more, larger campaigns. Forrest was further on the periphery of things. Interesting video.
Excellent. I'm from Memphis and my dad's family rode with Forrest and other Tennessee CSA units. Forrest was brave, inventive, and fearless...Stuart was no slouch, but I think Forrest was ahead of him.
Same here. I'm from Bartlett outside of Memphis. James W. Starnes, Col, 4th TN Cav, Forrest's command
Bottom Line: I would have followed LTG Nathan Bedford Forrest CSA) to hell and back or any other place he chose to lead his men to go more so than to. MG James Ewell Brown (Jeb) Stuart (CSA). It is both a honor and privilege to state that I am blood related to both and they are listed in my family genealogy tree.
Stuart was part of that Cavalier social superiority, the idea that the upper class (NOBILITY) would provide the superior leadership. Lee faced this problem in the officer corps and he could never rid his army of this influence. Forrest was more like the English Puritans, the Roundheads in his approach to life. Hence merit was what counted with him, not bloodlines. The other factor was that he commanded irregulars, individuals who did not take to the normal spit and polish discipline of army life. These men couldn't march in formation if their lives depended on it. Yet these men were often adept at creative solutions from the ground up rather than the top down. Stuart led a regular Calvary while Forrest led irregulars who could adapt and overcome. In short, they were the Marine Devil Dog or a later year.
I’m surprised you ignored Stuart’s performance at Gettysburg.
Stuart had little performance at Gettysburg as he wasn't there for the first two days of the battle leaving Lee just about deaf , dumb and blind by which time of Stuart's return Lee's goose was already thoroughly cooked. Though Stuart had no real performance at Gettysburg his lack of presence had a huge impact on the battle. Lee never knew the disposition of the Union Army , where it was and how soon would he be tangling with the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Without Stuart and his Calvary Lee didn't know what he was up against so he attacked when he should of backed off and redeployed like longstreet wanted to do. Lee made some very big mistakes at Gettysburg and I believe that was because of the lack of current information that Stuart was supposed to provide and in my opinion and only in my opinion Stuart's ride around the Union Army may have cost the Confederacy the war and it's independents.
Had Lee had Gen. Stonewall Jackson at his disposal at Gettysburg the Confederates would've most likely prevailed. The Confederate command at Gettysburg was sorely lacking in moxie and initiative, two trademark qualities of Jackson.
@@lionelhutz5137I mostly agree, IF the Union had stayed. There may very well have never been a day 2 or 3, if Jackson had taken Culp's Hill(and I have no doubt he would have). Lee would have placed as many guns on that hill as he could and made the Union positions farther down the line untenable. Meade and the whole AOP would most likely have fallen back to their already prepared defensive line at Pipe Creek, where Meade wanted the battle to happen anyway. He even issued a Pipe Creek Circular on June 30? I think, to his Corps commanders informing them of this. But, alas, we'll never know?
@@lionelhutz5137 Or at the very least a bloody draw.
@@lionelhutz5137 Wrong. Amatuers talk strategy, professionals talk supply....supply wise the South could not win a campaign in the North. It could win a battle or two, but not a campaign...agree?
Both Generals were outstanding. However, I agree with your assessment. Your channel is great!
Thank you so much!
Thanks for the video I enjoy all your videos. If possible could you do a comparison video of Mosby and whoever you think would be an interesting comparison. If you have the time I would like to see a comparison video of Alexander vs Cesar. Thanks
John Hunt Morgan! Now that was a daring raid! Stole a bunch of my GG grandparents horses!
Interested in your assessment of John Singleton Mosby aka The Gray Ghost!!!!
Even the Federals..(Grant, Sherman, and most Notably..Phillip Sheridan!!) said that Forrest had no equal, North or South!! Forrest, period. And if you look at Forrest, he adapted to EVERYTHING..Having No real military training. He was unbelievable at what he was able to achieve. "IF Mr. Forrest would let me be, I'd do the same for him"...as if Forrest was even worried about what Sturgis would do...His ability to understand the long travel, heat, and HUMIDITY, is what made him. And he was only surprised one time, and that was in Tennessee, when he said, "Break in two..then go both ways!!" Which was a 45° break in the two, then 200 yards or so, do it again..they couldn't focus on which way to go!! And they easily escaped..
Maybe it's my bias for living and growing up in the Shenandoah Valley but I'd have to say Stuart edges out Forrest... Looking at some of the effect of some of the partisan units under him with regards to raids and scouting , specifically Mosby, I think that puts him over the edge... Thanks for the video ,great information
I'd be interested in a Revolutionary War comparison
Nathaniel Greene vs Daniel Morgan (like I said I'm a Shen valley guy lol so love learning about local heroes)
Born and raised in West Tennessee Forrest Country. I thought that Mosby and Forrest were more comparable. Mosby was very slick although he stayed pretty much in three countries in Virginia. Forrest was all over the place. He captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General during the war on both sides. He did that with a Tiny Infantry and Cavalry. Forrest had 31 confirmed kills in Hand to Hand Combat. He had 29 horses shot out from under him. He was wounded 4 time even shot once with a tiny pistol by one of his own men. While knocking the arm back of the shooter Forrest had a pin knife in his other hand mortally cutting Gould. Forrest had his bed put next to Gould and Forrest cried like a baby. Gould said it is better that I die because the Country needs you more. Lee was asked who was the best Soldier he ever had under his command. Lee replied "Although I have never met the man it was Forrest. Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said he was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Stuart was shot by pure luck. The Union Soldier was running away and just shot behind him not looking and Jeb got hit. That was a very sad day for Lee am sure. I really like Thomas Jackson. He was unbelievable in the Shenandoah Valley. Both of us have much to be proud of from the men that fought a invader.
Living there, I'm surprised you didn't mention Turner Ashby! Maybe he's fresh in my mind, because I'm currently listening to S.C. Gwynne's Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson. Not long having passed the Valley Campaign...
Could you do a video on comparison of Jackson and Longstreets as commanders?
Stuart was one of the finest Generals of the war. Forrest on the other hand is the kind of warrior that only comes up once in hundreds of years. To name Forrest's peers in history you would have to draw upon names like Ghengis Khan, Hannibal, or Alexander the Great.
I agree with your assessment 100%
Bragg vs Johnston! Perhaps a best political infighter?
Sickles vs Butler?
Thanks for your videos. I completely agree with your assessment. The adaptability is key to any combat. I would like to maybe see Patrick Cleburne compared to Albert Sidney Johnston. They both lost their lives so I thought that it would be good to compare. Love your work
Forest and Cleburne might have been the 2 greatest warriors in the Civil War
Gen. Cleburne said "If we lose this war, the United States will become aggressive abroad and despotic at home" ie: ( Vietnam & Afghanistan)
Forest had the advantage of fighting the rear guard of the Union army in his area and often attacked poorly trained and poorly equipped troops that were left to guard installations and supplies where no attacks were expected. He would go after the soft under belly and so he often caught them by total surprise. That makes for an easy victory. Stuart always took on front line troops gearing up for battle and so faced the best the Union army had. So the comparison of accomplishments does not necessarily reflect the skills of the officer rather the quality or lack there of in the enemy troops. Forrest was the brutal butcher while Stuart was the consummate southern gentleman and gallant officer.
Ok Sturgis the Union General at Brices Crossroads had 30% of his Army were supplied with new Repeating and Cartridge Rifles. Calvary outnumbered 5 to one and his Infantry was outnumbered almost 4 to 1. He did get Reinforcements hours later after Forrest attacked Sturgis. Forrest won that battle very decisively. Sturgis retired the minute he got back to Memphis. Many of his men crawling to the Train Depot they Marched from. Forrest Cavalry and small Infantry kept the Union Army from getting from Knoxville to Chattanooga for a year. Forrest had 31 kills in Hand to Hand Combat. No General in the History of our country has even touched that accomplishment. Just his name caused chaos in the Union Army. Forrest captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General during the war. How does a non trained Soldier do that? Lee was asked who was the best Soldier he ever had under his command. Lee said "Although I have never met the man it was Forrest. Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said he was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Forrest was wounded four times during the war. He had 29 horses shot out from under him. He was no coward and your comment kinda sounded like you may thought he was a coward. Maybe not but Forrest is the biggest bad ass our country ever produced.
Wow!!! I have a new history place to go to,thank you very much!!! I appreciate your work!!!
Here's a comparison I'd like to see: which Stephen Lang performance more accurately depicts the man whom he is portraying, Pickett in Gettysburg or Jackson in G&G?
Excellent points though you give Stuart a pass on his ego getting in the way of his mission...
Thank you. I did mention his overconfidence was his downfall. Especially at Brandy Station. Thank you so much for watching and supporting the channel.
Stuart's ego had nothing to do with the battle at Brandy Station. Union cavalry had never before been so aggressive, and no one in the AoNV expected that- not even Lee.
I do agree with your assesment. So did Gen Sherman. He gave an entire Corps one job, and that was to hunt down and harrass Gen. Forrest while Sherman's Army went to Atlanta and afterwards during the March to the Sea.
I think Shelby Foote considered Forrest to be one of the few geniuses the war produced when it came to fighting.
Shelby said forrest and Lincoln were the only 2 genius produced by the civil war
It wasn't an entire Corps. Sherman's order was for the Corp commander to delegate someone to find Forrest... which is what exactly happened. It was always the second rate commanders in Forrest's crosshairs.
I would agree with your conclusion that Forrest was the more effective and formidable commander. Stuart was a magnificent example of the classic cavalier, and he was without peer in American history in that regard. There is a reason that Forrest is still studied today world wide for his tactics and innovation. He accomplished the most with the least.
"Get there firstest with the mostest"
"Do not stand and take a charge but charge them too"
NBF
The most impressive thing about Forrest is that he is even comparable to a West Point officer in any military capacity.
False. The most impressive thing is his lineage became rich fishing shrimp and ran multiple times across this great nation.
@@moderndaywyattearp5792 I'm still more impressed that a hick dirt-farmer from absolutely nowhere had any military talent let alone enough to be considered an Elite member of the CSA Cavalry.
Just a natural fighter
He wasn't a "hick dirt farmer". He was one of the biggest slave traders in the south! He was rich! And he helped found the KKK. However, militarily, he was absolutely one the South's best.
Jennifer LePage As a hick dirt farmer I take great offense to that comment. You have besmirched me and I demand satisfaction!
I agree with your assessment of these two fine cavalry commanders. Stewart excellent but Forrest was exceptional, I only wish the powers that be would have placed him in command of an entire army. P.s Braxton Bragg was not very good.thank you enjoyed.
Sadly, Forrest once joined the KKK and I don't believe he is a cavalry commander that should be respected. I know most or even all Confederate generals were pro-slaverist and secessionist, but it is fine if they ended there. But some joined the KKK and lynched a lot of innocent people either black and white just because of their support towards the civil rights movement and support towards the Republican party. I know this is not related with the main topic of the video, but I just wanted to mention you guys about Nathan Forrest.
From a pure military standpoint, both were impressive. As the Northern forces sorted out their leadership issues, you see a complete shift from defeat to inevitable victory by the North. As people, both men supported a racist regime that murdered, raped and enslaved a race of people. For that, neither men are notable human beings and both had to answer for that choice.
When I watch old videos about say the 1986 Celtics, I don't do it so I have a chance to watch that wife beater, Robert Parrish. I watch to see the Celtics, including Robert Parish, play basketball.
Thanks again for all the videos. I have been thinking about comparisons what do you think about a video of which plan was better Nimitz island hopping where the PI was skipped or MacArthurs that went through the PI lasting a year. I know Nimitz was in the navy and MacArthur army . Thanks
General Forrest was the south’s best
Can you imagine if General Forrest teamed up with Stonewall Jackson the chaos they would have caused?!
Made in America baby!
Wooooooooo!!!!!!!
Longstreet was the south's best, Forrest was a very close second. Call it 1a & 1b
Longstreet and Forrest could never have served together. Their personalities would have clashed irredeemably. The first time Longstreet heard a GD out of Forrest, that would have been it. Plus, Longstreet was a West Pointer who had been, when the CW broke out, a professor of artillery in Virginia. Forrest, of course, had hardly any education at all, much less military. There are other reasons. It just (A) would never have happened, and (B) would have faltered on several grounds (chiefly personality) if it had.
@@billstory8034 The same could be said of Stonewall. Forrest behavior was like Connor McGreggor or 90s era Tyson. Whereas Stonewall acted more like Billy Graham or Jerry Fallwell.
I admire both of them, General Stuart was my friend for a long time.
Explain, you are how old?
That was a great analysis, keep up the good work
Thank you so much.
On March 25, 1864, Forrest's cavalry raided the town of Paducah, Kentucky in the Battle of Paducah, during which Forrest demanded the surrender of U.S. Colonel Stephen G. Hicks: "if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quarter." Hicks refused to comply with the ultimatum, and according to his subsequent report, Forrest's troops took a position and set up a battery of guns while a flag of truce was still up. As soon as they received the Union reply, they moved forward at the command of a junior officer, and the Union forces opened fire. The Confederates tried to storm the fort, but were repulsed; they rallied and made two more attempts, both of which failed. He certainly marshalled all of his hubris to write a check with his mouth that his body couldn't cash. Both commanders excelled in causing constrenation through raiding and ride arounds, but I am not sure either won a battle. Forrest was great at fightring rearguard actions when Bragg failed.
Rest easy; Forrest qualifies. His biggest, though not only, victory was the Battle of Brice's Crossroads. Brice's CR was at one time (maybe now, too; I don't know) taught at West Point as the classic small army battle of the Civil War in one or more credible books (though neither can I recall which).
A great video on a topic that doesn't get much coverage on this side of the Pond. Interesting reference to Stuart as a Cavalier - I've recently heard that many in the South regarded themselves as the inheritors of the Cavalier/Royalist mantle from our Civil War. I'm not sure how accurate that is but ironically our Royal family at the time was the House of Stuart (sadly no relation to me). My only gripe is that Americans cannot pronounce Stuart correctly.
Anyway, subscribed.
I would take Stuart hand down. The man was a genius, Stuart was the eyes of the Army after his death the army was doomed.
I totally agree any great military leader has become great by learning the ever changing battles.
Both men were good leaders stuart was a trained soldier Forrest wasn't in war a good leader must adapt to the situation quickly I thank Forrest done a better job at this
Always interesting to hear comparisons between interesting and accomplished people. Norma Jean Morrissey
Gold coins or gold bars, those guys are. My family straddle the state border near Stuarts home, and my father taught history, so we heard about both every year after Christmas...
Forrest postponed the war for almost a year. He kept the Union Army from getting from Knoxville to Chattanooga for year. Also Forrest had 31 confirmed kills in hand to hand combat. Forrest captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General on both sides of the war. Forrest always showed the enemy a Dare. That caused the enemy to think Forrest had more men. Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said Forrest was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Stuart as you said didn't have to ability to change to compensate for the Forces around him or attacking him. Jeb was the Model of a outstanding Prestigious Officer and Forrest didn't bother with the optics he was supposed to be. Forrest just won and he was the bluff King. He bluffed 12,000 men to Surrender in Murfreesboro buy having his men March in a circle at the top of a hill. Constantly showing his Artillery. Under a white flag the Union Officer was looking at that over Forrest's shoulder asking Forrest how many Artillery Pieces do you have? Forrest replied I guess that is all that has been able to show up so far. After the Officer realized he had been snickered he told Forrest to give his men and supplies back. Forrest replied that all is fair and slapped the Officer on the back. Can you imagine the grin on Forrest's face? Lee was asked who was the best Soldier he ever had under his command. Lee said "although I have never met the man it was Forrest. Guess that answers the question.
Ah, Mr. Sherrick, glad to see you could make it. You kinda left your buddy "lil joe d." hanging on that other video about Grant's opinion of Lee after the war? That's no way for a mentor to behave. You know he has a self-esteem issue. Shame. And you didn't respond to my challenge...hmm...kind of funny that you called someone here out for "insinuating" Forrest was a coward. So, now that we're both done slumming, let's get to it shall we?
Forrest absolutely DID NOT POSTPONE? the war in the West for a year by single handedly keeping the Union AOC from advancing on Chattanooga! I kind of think the CSA AOT had a little to do with that? And I guarantee Bragg would disagree! And you seem to be forgetting (not surprising for a "lost causer") there was a general named US GRANT who captured 3 entire armies during the war along with ALL their equipment and supplies! Roughly about 70,000 men! "Forrest always showed the enemy a dare"? What does that mean? I think the word you were looking for is "bluff." In fact you do use it correctly later? I think "lil joe" needs to find a more literate and more knowledgeable mentor. You guys really need to quit using your GROSSLY inaccurate "lost cause" source materials and study real acceptable historical fact, especially on the CW! Oh, and that was an awfully cute anecdote at the end. By the way, Lee was a traitor (in his own words) and a loser. I'm not going to put too much stock in a comment he made AFTER the war! Looking forward to your reply, IF YOU'RE UP TO IT! Ta Ta. Oh, say hi to "lil joe" for me. He doesn't seem to come round much anymore?
Anyone could have accomplished the same as Forrest. A 12,000 man Cavarly force by total commands in the Western Theatre gave the CSA a huge advantage. If Van Dorn had joined it would have ballooned by 7,000 more. The U.S. Army was 4,500 strong in comparison.
@@USGrant-rr2byI just now saw your comment from 3 years ago. General John R. Scales wrote a Book The Battles and Campaigns Of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. He explicitly explained how Forrest caused the war to last a year longer than it would have without him. You are right Forrest bluffed a few of his opponents. Strieght surrender on Forrest's Bluff. Forrest was dogging him so much over a few days. Forrest always kept the fear or scare on Union Troops. Also Forrest Bluffed a Union General in Murfreesboro by having his men and Artillery Marching in a Circle at the Top of the Hill. The Union General asked Forrest how much Artillery do you have? Forrest replied I reckon that is all that has been able to keep up. So read the book I suggested and you will understand how Forrest caused the war to last a year longer than it would have without Forrest. I just don't make stuff up. And you are the typical person that always says facts that come from the Southern Side are always called Lost Cause Mythology. You people need to come up with something different. I wrote a comment without giving the reference just to see people like you to call it Lost Cause Mythology. I got a few back and I laughed my ass off. It was Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. The Lincoln taught is a lie and a myth.
@@scottgoens7575Forrest man count was different at many Battles. All you did was affirm Forrest. That is being smart showing up with the most and using that to a benefit. Jackson did it time after time in the Shenandoah. Also study Forrest against Sturgis's at Brices Crossroads. Talking about a under dog win. 30% of Sturgis's Army had new Carbine and Repeating Rifles. Forrest routed Sturgis's. Forrest outnumbered in Calvary 5 to 1 and Infrantry 4 to 1. Forrest used the weather against Sturgis's and used the land because Forrest was a natural at Topography. Forrest did get reinforcements late in the day but he already had Sturgis on the run. You can say what you want about Forrest but he was cunning. Why do you think Grant said Forrest was the only General he feared. Sherman said I don't care if it cost 10,000 men and it breaks the Treasury to get that Devil Forrest. Sherman said after the war that Forrest was the most remarkable man to come out of the war. Those are Forrest's Peers from the Union. I guess you know more about how great Forrest wasn't than those two General's that had to deal with Forrest. Go get Sturgis's Quotes about Forrest. He if Forrest will leave me alone, I will leave him alone. Also General John R. Scales wrote a great book on Forrest. The Title is The Battles And Campaigns Of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest is third in line of having the most Literature written about him than any other Civil War Figure. Forrest is only behind Lincoln and Lee. Leaders that aren't great don't have that many people writing about them.
Affirm Forrest's man count? I affirmed he was in battle, in friendly territory, with total logistical support anywhere he went, with the best intelligence anywhere he went. Not much effort needed in contrast to his enemies. Furthermore second rate officers (such as Samuel Sturgis), units on fatigue duty, and small logistics supply hubs were Forrest's opposition. A feat anyone could have accomplished.
Sturgis and the U.S. Army (see Rosecrans mobility issues in the Tullahoma campaign because of lack of horses) had a very poor grade of horses and not enough horses (to which he grabbed mules.) Even with mules he lost so many mounts in his ill fated ride that at many points they were at a standstill. It's kind of easy to plan attacks if your Forrest.
Forrest took the bait hook line and sinker going after (Sturgis) as Grant intended. He maneuvered on Vicksburg free of any harassment by Forrest in Forrest area of jurisdiction. A failure of Forrest's of epic proportion. (He was operating in Wheelers area.)
As for topography Forrest had the greatest local intelligence that allowed him to put it to use. (Unlike his opponent.) He did put this to great use against Sturgis. Being that Sturgis stayed on the main road all the way to the ambush point. All the soldiers Sturgis had with him were green as the Veterans were on Furlow. The only Veterans among them were the USCT troops that bloodied Forrest's nose as a rear guard during the flight.
Grant never said he feared Forrest, that is Forrest idol worship gone wrong. Find me the primary source. Not just I read it in a blog type stuff.
Sherman was pissed at incompetence of second rate soldiers not able to track Forrest down. The Cincinnati Enquirer liked to sensationalize Sherman to it's Democratic readerships delight. Sherman hated newspapers so you have the context wrong.
Sherman had a chance meeting with Forrest on a train during Forrest's political stumping. So it was not really by chance. With newspaper reporters present the question put Sherman on the spot with his tour of the South. (Atlanta welcomed him with open arms for an entire week.) Again, history out of context on your part.
I know General John R. Scales from forums. His sources come directly from the line of John Allen Wyeth copycats. His book is more of a military history side so it is more palatable. If you want a better look at Forrest read Jack Hurst for the good and bad, simply the man. All other books just regurgitate the same old shite. @@kurtsherrick2066
I would like to see an evaluation of the 5th Alabama Infantry Commanders Rodes, Hall, Hobson, Blackford. If enough information is available.
I can try to find info and see if a video could be made.
I've become interested in Civil War history. I have a basic understanding of the Western campaign timeline but not so much what took place in the Eastern campaign.
What would be your suggestion to a better overall knowledge of the Army of Virginia and the timeline it took from beginning to the end of the war?
Good work here, keep it up.
Thanks...MG
I would recommend the books written by Jeff Shaara. His father, Michael Shaara ,wrote "The Killer Angels." Which the movie Gettysburg is based. Upon his father's death, Jeff took over writing similar books. They are novelizations of the civil war based on the journals and historical records of the era. Covering the war in the East was Gods and Generals, The Killer Angels and Last Full Measure. The books in the West are A Blaze of Glory, A Chain of Thunder, The Smoke at Down and The Fateful Lightening. It's a brilliant way to get a feel for the history of the war in a novelisation. Sometimes I find reading straight history gets to be tedious. When I find parts that intrigue me then I will find history books written covering those parts of the war.
The books give equal balance to both Union and Confederate generals and soldiers. He does a fair and balanced story on both sides without getting bogged down into politics and 20th/21st century feelings on the Civil War. He pretty much sticks to the facts of what happened and tries to get a little inside the head of the participants. The Western Theater books cover from Shilo, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and so on thru Shermans March to the sea. You get perspectives of the western Generals like Albert Sidney Johnston, Braxton Bragg, and Forrest. On the other side you get Grant, Sherman, Rosecrans and Thomas. Plus some soldiers in the ranks and in the last book you get the POV of a freed slave following Shermans march.
Well done. You presented facts very accurately.
Hey!
Could you do a versus between Lieutenant-Generals Longstreet and Jackson for their roles as infantry corps commanders?
Or Major Generals Ewell and A.P. Hill as divisional commanders?
Forrest...one the most natural commanders ever to command.
Forrest lost another horse at Fort Pillow....he was returning from his raid on Paducah Ky. and a group of his men who had not made the trip were supposed to be waiting near Fort Pillow had instead began the attack on the Fort and the Fort commander had caught a bullet....Forrest told them to stop while he rode around looking at the terrain when his horse apparently was shot in the head and dropped like a rock trapping Forrest's leg underneath so that some men had to lift the horse and free him. The numbers I have seen are Forrest killed 30 of them and they killed 29 of Forrest's horses. Deo Vindice.
That was an awesome video I would like to see you compare Patton and MacArthur
Jackson and Forrest were without a doubt the 2 best generals of the entire war.
I love Jeb Stuart. But didn't know the background I Nathan Bedford Forrest. This was extremely enlightening. And this is coming from a Yankee born and raised on Long Island. I've been in Florida for 30 yrs now. And always felt I've been a southern boy. Not racist in any way. Just southern in nature.
B.S.
Forrest was shot at the battle of Shiloh....interesting story. He had balls of brass...read up on it.
I agree and I think Forrest would have been a better choice over Hood as commander of the army of Tennessee post Atlanta.
Even though Forrest never commanded more than 5000 men at one time and that was not until much later in the war?