View single post by BloodyBob64
 Posted: Tue Jul 29th, 2008 05:05 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Posts: 23

  back to top

Kentucky, you make some excellent points about Stuart. He does have a pretty flawless track record and his role at Chancelorsville was quite impressive. I suppose one could argue that he had greater responsibilities than Forrest's, but I would say they were just different responsibilties.

Not only was Forrest a master of raids and fighting pitched battles, but in my mind he was the best calvary commander in rear guard situations and his role in Nashville in 1862 showed the kind of control he could take in dire circumstances. He also did not have a successful army from which to feed off of and he was under the command of men that in my opinion were his inferior. There was also more than one occasion when Forrest's command was given to Wheeler and Forrest had to begin again with fresh recruits. This however did not stop his effectiveness.

But ultimately, we will never really no what would have happened had Stuart's and Forrest's places been switched. I agree with you that Stuart was excellent, but I do not think he matched up to his legend. I think that I would have had "the vastly under-rated" Hampton in command over him.

 Close Window