Matrix Games Forums

General Nathan Bedford Forrest, when querried on what determines success in battle, repied simply, "Whoever gets there the firstest with the mostest.".

Well Forrest was an over-simplifying sort of guy with very poor strategic skills and with such a poor grasp of what was truly important that he mostly missed the most crucial battle of the war.


I think that Temujin and Subutai identified it much more correctly when they pointed to the side who last commits their reserve as being the side which normally wins.

Subutai's battles all went according to this rule of thumb and Subutai was one of the world's best, most incisive generals who is cruelly overlooked by the West.

Forrest was a nasty tempered, aggressive sort, who spent most of his days raiding Union rear communications. He was a 'fighter' in the tactical sense and good at what he did. He never held a numerically large command and , I suspect, wasn't 'invited' to higher command simply because he'd druther 'call out' his senior commanders than play nice. I don't believe anyone ever accused him of being gifted with any sort of stategic insight. He was a fighter pure and simple and tactically, hell on wheels.
And, if I may correct myself, I think what he really said was, "Whoever gets there the fustest with the mostest". 'The operative being 'fustest'; in typical Southern English. Leaving us Yankee amature historians to queery whether he he meant 'fastest' or 'firstest'. A moot point probably, since most of us get the sense of what he meant. However, corporate lawyers and and constructionalist Repuplicans have a feild day with that sort of ambiguity, building massive furtunes and whole political movements around it. (I know - off topic!).
Nemo, I have been reading your AAR's, and I must say, you have a gift for clear expression. You have got yourself a fan here. In your terms i'd guess you'd say something like you have "got my attention and disoriented my OODA loop" drawing me to your AAR's like a mindless, predisposed, amature grognard"!
Regards

Wasn't it Forrest too who said "you have to keep up the scare" once you had the others running back? He might not have fit the mold of a great General but he shure had a way of over simplifying so everybody could understand.

Well, I think he actually said, "You have to keep up the skeer". That is how it is expressed in most histories I have read.

I think Forrest was a good "fighter" but not fit for a post which had strategic implications. He's a bit like Rommel... A good tactician and even somewhat useful operationally but strategically pretty damned questionable. Rommel gains points on the strategic level for his assessment of the Normandy situation though while Forrest will forever be tarnished by Gettysburg and his abysmal and negligent conduct there.


As to over-simplifying so that everybody could understand... A general's job isn't to be understood, it is to operate at the appropriate level ( operational or strategic ) as befits their posting - e.g. the Soviets viewed Divisions as the largest unit capable of operating at the operational level while anything above a division was strategic. At the level at which he was supposed to operate at Gettysburg Forrest failed abysmally with significant impact on the Confederate freedom of action and ability to plan appropriately.

Sabring poorly trained Union troops left right and centre might be eye-catching but it wasn't the level at which Forrest would have had the greatest impact on the war. Whether he and his men killed 10,000 or 100,000 didn't really impact the grand strategical picture. Doing proper, timely recon with good picket forces and disruption of the Union movement of reserves to contact over the night following Day 1 is what he should have been doing. Even if he hadn't killed a man he'd have helped the Confederates hugely.

As Steamboateng alludes though he reached a level and stayed there. Lee's mistake was in using a "fighter" instead of a strategically gifted man for such a crucial role as recon/picketing during the move north in 63. You can't expect from a man something he isn't temperamentally or intellectually capable of.


Steamboateng,
I'm glad you enjoyed the AARs. I've been reading your thread on the defence of the DEI. I'd be happy to discuss ideas/concepts with you and fcharlton in my Salutations AAR. not publicly though as, obviously, my opponent reads the public forums. Hopefully we can move beyond the unpleasantness of the initial exchange in this thread.

As to disorienting your OODA loop. Well, hopefully it has just been re-oriented a little in a helpful manner. Mindless? No, far from it from what I've read. We all had to start somewhere with AE. It can be quite overwhelming initially, especially for an Ostfronter like me... Planes and ships are rather different than ISU-122s.

"while Forrest will forever be tarnished by Gettysburg and his abysmal and negligent conduct there."

I think that you have Forrest confused with JEB Stuart. Forrest did not serve at Gettysburg - in fact, I don't think that he ever served with the Army of Northern Virginia. Wasn't his whole war spent in the west (by this, I am using the Virginian's attitude that any fighting that was not fought in Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania counts as "in the west")?

Argh, you're right I was mixing him and Stuart up at Gettysburg. My bad... Sorry about that, the non-Gettysburg stuff still applies IMO but obviously I can't blame the guy for a battle he wasn't even at [8D]

OOPS!!! [:)]

Edit: I have been penalized 15 yards for illegal hijacking of thread. Accordingly, I've edited out my Confederate cavalry commander comments. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I consider the thread well and truly highjacked so . . . imo Lee doesn't get called out enough for his role in Stuart's pre-Gettysburg adventure. After Brandy Station (and the subsequent spanking Stuart took to his reputation in the Rebel newspapers) Lee should have known that screening the ANV wasn't going to be first on Stuart's agenda in the next campaign. Lee's orders to Stuart weren't strict enough in scope, allowing Stuart the freedom to interpret them to his liking. Absent Stuart Lee still had 4 brigades of cavalry remaining (Stuart only took 3 with him). There should have been a second in command available to handle the screening and recon needed by the ANV, a weakness in its command structure and a further indictment against Lee.

Stuart showed up late in the second day of battle. Lee gave him a'dressing down' as best as he muster, under the circumstances. But you are right, Lee's prediliction for ambiguous orders, not only resulted in Stuart's absence, but may have cost a greater victory in the late afternoon fighting around Culp's Hill.
Nemo's references to bayoneting poorly trained Union troops is a reference, I believe, to the infamous Ft. Pillow 'massacre'. Elements of a black regiment were mecilessly bayonetted by Forrest's troopers, it is claimed, while in the process of surrendering. Forrest denied the charges after the war. However, knowing Forrest's pre-war experiences as an actual purveyor in the slave trade, (the foudation of his financial success, with which he raised his status to 'planter') and his post war involvement with the Klu-Klux-Klan movement, certainly doesn't diminish the posibility of his implicit, if not outright, explicit involvement in the affair.

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well Forrest was an over-simplifying sort of guy with very poor strategic skills and with such a poor grasp of what was truly important that he mostly missed the most crucial battle of the war.
(/quote]

Actually, Forrest never served under Lee, and tended to act more or less independently in the west as a major PITA to the Union forces. He did serve early on as a cavalry commander at battles like Fort Donalson and Shiloh, but after that was 'turned loose' to operate behind enemy lines. He appeared to have a rather good grasp of what the South needed to win as well; certainly IMO than most of the South's army commanders did in fact.

Git thar furstest wit da mostest !!!
[:D]

Oh gees, that sounds like something an Orc Boyz leader would say in WH40K.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Oh gees, that sounds like something an Orc Boyz leader would say in WH40K.

Good guess, but actually try Nathan Bedforest Forest in the ACW [:)]

Aye, I knew who actually said it... It was more a comment on its sophistication of insight ( or lack thereof )...

BTW, congrats on the release.

Actually I think Forest's quote is roughly equivalent to the following Guderian quote. Certainly the "trappings" may not be sophisticated, but that doesn't mean the idea is not.

Here is Guderdian's rough equivalent (which many DO consider to be "sophisticated"):

Man schlägt jemanden mit der Faust und nicht mit gespreizten Fingern. (You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread.)

Another Forest quote goes something like, "Hit'em on the EEE UND" ... trying to write it like it might have been spoken ... basically this "unsophisticated sounding" noise ... really means ... "Hit them on the Flank" ... which we recognize as one of the long standing tactical concepts.

Forest did not have a sophisticated way of saying things ... but he was pretty darn successful in the field ... and that probably speaks louder than his words ...

BTW I guess we are just enjoying the total mauling of this thread ... eh?
[:)]

Yeah, Forrest was playing hoss cavalry tag with Union commanders OODA loops long before Boyd came on the scene.
Nasty, nasty, old man!

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Aye, I knew who actually said it... It was more a comment on its sophistication of insight ( or lack thereof )...

BTW, congrats on the release.

A lot of people like to make fun of southern speech because we have a different accent but the things Forrest said are famous because he used so few words to give so much meaning and insight. But bekaws he tawks funny, sometimes the unsofistikated make the misteak o thinkin he's dum.

ORIGINAL: Tijanski
A lot of people like to make fun of southern speech because we have a different accent but the things Forrest said are famous because he used so few words to give so much meaning and insight. But bekaws he tawks funny, sometimes the unsofistikated make the misteak o thinkin he's dum.

True -- it is unfortunate that Southerners get stigmatized in this fashion.

However, Forrest was a despicable thug despite his "gems" of military wisdom. He was the antithesis of the Southern Gentleman both during and after the war. As a son of Dixie, I cringe when his name comes up -- and I can't help but get a mental image of Larry the Cable Guy on horseback.

Regards,
Feltan

But since this thread has been well and truly hijacked, I do have a question. My southern friends will forgive me if I aks it in a way that sujests I been to skule.

Stuart, Forrest, Wheeler, and Hampton, on the one side, and Pleasonton, Sheridan, Kilpatrick, and Wilson, on the other, all had moments (or lifetimes) of failure. I think every general has had a fart in the saddle at some time. These men are recognized by everybedy as fine commanders. But if a screw up disqualifies them from considerations of greatness, just who is left? And what is the criteria for judgment?