Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forrest & Stuart Change Places?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Forrest & Stuart Change Places?



    Suppose Jeb Stuart had reigned supreme in the Western Theater, and Nathan Bedford Forrest had led General Lee's Cavalry? This option supposes that both men would know their respective areas terrain.

  • #2
    Not sure Forrest would get along well with Robert Lee, he was too much of a loose cannon.

    Comment


    • #3
      True, but he knew how to get the job done. Its hard to imagine a more spectacular waste of Cavalry then what Stuart did with his men in Pennsylvania. He even allowed himself to be neutralized by Custer (using fewer men) on day 3.

      Forest, on the other hand.... I can almost see him crashing right into Meade's HQ on the second day. Or maybe even demolishing that RR before the battle even started.
      "Why is the Rum gone?"

      -Captain Jack

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Boonierat View Post
        Not sure Forrest would get along well with Robert Lee, he was too much of a loose cannon.
        True, I doubt that Lee would have tolerated the war crimes that Forrest and his units committed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
          True, but he knew how to get the job done. Its hard to imagine a more spectacular waste of Cavalry then what Stuart did with his men in Pennsylvania. He even allowed himself to be neutralized by Custer (using fewer men) on day 3.

          Forest, on the other hand.... I can almost see him crashing right into Meade's HQ on the second day. Or maybe even demolishing that RR before the battle even started.
          Lol, where is Eric when you need him?
          The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
            Lol, where is Eric when you need him?
            Hell, I dunno, I'm just flailing around here trying to keep an non-WW2 thread alive!
            "Why is the Rum gone?"

            -Captain Jack

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the switch would hurt Lee. Forrest was a bit of a hot head and often had difficulty working within a command structure. If he felt his superiors were making a bad decision he wasn't beyond disobeying orders, or doing what he wanted in any case.

              With Bragg Forrest at one point stormed into Bragg's headquarters and told him he would accept no more orders from him and if Bragg tried to interfer with his command Forrest would kill him (and meant it).

              Not exactly the guy you want running your cavalry and you rely on for reconnissance.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                With Bragg Forrest at one point stormed into Bragg's headquarters and told him he would accept no more orders from him and if Bragg tried to interfer with his command Forrest would kill him (and meant it).
                Considering the kind of man Bragg was, I might have done the same thing.

                Hm.... I guess that's why I had to leave the military... eh?
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not defending Bragg who was probably one of the most disagreeable Generals on either side in the ACW. But, rather, pointing out Forrest had little tolerance for superiors that wanted something he was not in line with.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the results of such a proposal would have surprised some people here. I think Forrest would have done as well as Stuart, but I don't think he would have done everything the same. He probably would have made more emphasis on Mounted Infantry tactics than Stuart.

                    I don't think the war crimes issue would be any different with different commanders. With men like Grant and Sherman in control of Union troops, the Yankees would have done the same war crimes. With the Yankees stripping Mississippi, Louisiana and other areas, then arming ex-slaves, why would the Confederates play nice?

                    It does not matter who does war crimes first, once they get started. They have a life of their own.

                    Pruitt
                    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When it comes to "war crimes" the only one is LOSING.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The only real advantage Stuart had over Forrest is a West Point education and some experience as a Troop officer in Kansas. He also participated in the capture of John Brown with Robert E. Lee. Stuart went from Regiment commander to Brigade commander to Division commander under Lee. I see nothing to indicate that Forrest could not have done the same thing.

                        Forrest also showed that he was capable of being led by a commander. It was after the commander failed that Forrest let his posterior show.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X