Who Won

[Tijanski]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

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

I know and I do agree. but you can not dismiss a thought because the man who thought it was hateful. Uh oh, why do I suddenly feel like I am walking in a minefield freshly manured with pig $h!t?

[steamboateng]

While in N'orlens, many years past, I noticed the ladies selling lace in Sears spoke a subdued Southern, as compared to the leggy young things pouring my bourbon at the nite spots!
This of course, has nuthin' to do with 'nuthin. But I do believe one of the sweetest echoes in memories was that "Y'all come back now,...... y'hear!" parting.
Get's me to kinda thinkin' of what Dan'l Morgan said in late age, regagardig youth.
Aw! Never mind?

[Nemo121]

Tijanski,

I was referring to sophistication of insight ( what he said ) and not sophistication of speech ( how he said it ). I couldn't care less about his accent or vernacular.

I simply don't think that he had a brain capable of operating at the strategic level ( that level which is necessary to operate as a good general ). Was he a great raider and guerilla-type leader? Absolutely. Was he a good general at the strategic level? No.


As to one error disqualifying people from consideration as great generals. Not at all but Forrest wasn't a man whose strategic brilliance was marred by a single failure. He was a man who didn't show strategic brilliance ( tactical and operational? Perhaps but not strategic ).


As to people for consideration at the strategic level....
Subutai, Balck, Chuikov, Gaius Flaminius, Vo Nguyen Giap, Eisenhower, Washington, Nelson ( people look at the naval victories but don't sometimes see the strategical positioning which slowly but surely eroded his enemy's positions until they ended up in such losing battles from positions which, earlier, were much stronger ) ... There are many, many of them throughout history.

[Tijanski]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Tijanski,

I was referring to sophistication of insight ( what he said ) and not sophistication of speech ( how he said it ). I couldn't care less about his accent or vernacular.

I simply don't think that he had a brain capable of operating at the strategic level ( that level which is necessary to operate as a good general ). Was he a great raider and guerilla-type leader? Absolutely. Was he a good general at the strategic level? No.


As to one error disqualifying people from consideration as great generals. Not at all but Forrest wasn't a man whose strategic brilliance was marred by a single failure. He was a man who didn't show strategic brilliance ( tactical and operational? Perhaps but not strategic ).


As to people for consideration at the strategic level....
Subutai, Balck, Chuikov, Gaius Flaminius, Vo Nguyen Giap, Eisenhower, Washington, Nelson ( people look at the naval victories but don't sometimes see the strategical positioning which slowly but surely eroded his enemy's positions until they ended up in such losing battles from positions which, earlier, were much stronger ) ... There are many, many of them throughout history.

I don't recall anybody saying Forrest was a strategest at all. I do not know where you are coming from with all that.

All I see is just another list of good generals and even they had their farts in the saddle. I can make a list even longer and even more obscure and to me even better. Lots or people have different opinions, so what makes your opinion worth more than somebody else's. I still have not seen any criteria so all I can conclude is you have your favorite list and I have mine. I will not pee on yours, if you will not pee on mine.

[Nemo121]

There was a discussion about strategy. Strategy is something generals engage in. Forrest's name arose in that context.

As to the rest of your post... Obscure? LOL! Subutai, Flaminius and the others are utterly mainstream. Your implied impugnation is both unwarranted and unfounded and if you really think they're obscure then you're going to have a steep learning curve in certain threads on this forum.

Ah well, with such an attitude you're welcome to the green button.

[steamboateng]

Nemo, kinda chippy weather out there today, so I'm gonna snuggle up with your 'Salutations' AAR, - up to page 20 - and catch up. Will probably toss in my 2 pence here and there, once my OODA loop orients. Still a great read.
Regards

[Tijanski]

green button? I for one do not mind admitting I do not know everything. What is a green button?

[steamboateng]

Everybody has a green button.

[Nemo121]

steamboateng,

Aye, I'd welcome any comments/questions etc... After all sparking interesting discussions is why I write AARs. If it weren't for feedback from readers I wouldn't bother writing them. I'm glad you find it interesting.

[Canoerebel]

I don't see how Forrest can be critiqued on his strategic abilities. He was seldom if ever in a position to engage in strategic planning. Critiquing him while lauding others - Washington, Eisenhower, etc. - who were in such a position is comparing apples to oranges.

It should be noted that Forrest's adroit handling of his cavalry certainly had significant strategic benefits for the Confederacy. Also, he is often credited as the first to employ cavalry as a mobile troop of infantry, which is to say he came up with a new and effective way to use cavalry. Sounds like a strategic accomplishment to me.

[Nemo121]

Hmm, mobility of troops is a technical/tactical characteristic. How that is used determines whether it is utilised tactically, operationally or strategically. You are of course welcome to your opinion but I demur from it.

As to being the first to use cavalry as a mobile troop of infantry.... Hmm, in the US military certainly ( but not in CONUSA as some of the Indian tribes there seem to have utilised horses for mobility but often fought on foot == I can't say which ones specifically as I'm not well-read on American Indian warfare) but there were significant forces of horse and camel-borne infantry in action in Europe and the Middle East as well as China from at least the 6th Century AD. It is dealt with in some detail in the Strategikon also which predates Forrest by 7 centuries and draws its roots from actions some 12 centures prior to Forrest - I speak of the Byzantine Meros here which, I think you'll find, utilised their horse-borne mobility but then fought on foot when the situation required. The Meros were reported to utilise their mobility etc in this way from at least the 6th or 7th Century AD. Mongolian Tumen would often dismount also, if the situation required.

Actually if you haven't read the Strategikon I'd highly recommend it. It is a great example of incisive strategic analysis on leveraging smaller, more mobile forces which have greater adaptability to defeat multiple types of threats, each of which has different tactical/technical characteristics but all of which are united by a slower adaptability both in terms of doctrinal change and tactical/operational innovation. It is a case of a pretty good all-rounded writing down how to defeat forces which are superior in a facet but less adaptable and showing how an all-rounder force can be task-optimised for each particular enemy doctrine/capability in turn.

Really some very interesting stuff and absolutely applicable to modern day strategy if you take the higher-level picture from Strategikon and don't get bogged down in the details of watering the animals etc.


Getting back to the point though... Not only wasn't his "innovation" novel but employing cavalry as horse-borne infantry was historically more of a tactical and operational level utilisation. At that level it was very effective in the American theatre of operations but that owed a lot to the quality of the opposition's leaders.

Of course though, as always, you are welcome to your opinion as to the level at which Forrest operated or couldn't operate.