"Was Jeb Stuart as good as N B Forrest???" Topic

Still working out a few tactical ratings for a couple of generals. I think we can all agree that Forrest was one of, if not the best Cavalry commander of not just the CSA but on both sides. The exploits of Stuart are also well known.
In my research I find myself wanting to rate Stuart just a little below Forrest, giving Forrest a 4 tactical rating and Stuart a 3. Now, by tactical rating I am just talking strickly about their ability to fight an actual battle with some of their overall abilities thrown in.
I find that Stuart seemed to sometimes let his desire for fame and getting his name in the pappers impair his tactical judgement. I also am thinking of the fact that Stuart let Lee down when, ironically, he probably needed him the most….right before Gettysburg. Because of this I feel like he was not quit as good as Forrest.
What do you guys think? Am I right, being fair or do you think Stuart has just as much ability and should be given the same rating as Forrest?? Thanks. Happy gaming!!

I think this is why I dislike rating systems. For the most part, Stuart served as a recon officer while Forest led mounted infantry. And in any event, Stuart's ride in Maryland and PA doesn't reflect one way or the other on his "ability to fight an actual battle."

I'd also say that was one of several occasions where Lee's subordinates get beaten up by historians for following Lee's orders. (Longstreet on the Second Day is another.) Good generals--even great generals--sometimes make mistakes. Unless they're Robert E. Lee, in which case the man executing the order is to blame.

Fair enough and good points all but since I am talking about a game that requires various generals to be rated for game mechanics my question is, well the same:) Thanks, happy gaming!

Forrest could lead more than cavalry. Stuart attempted it at Chancellorsville after Jackson was shot. I do believe Forrest better overall. But Forrest was not an easy subordinate. Also Stuart was used differently by Lee than Forrest was.

Leading Cavalry, I'd say even, but Forrest wins the overall.

But just my opinion.

Stuart was a great cavalry commander but Forrest was a more pragmatic leader – Stuart's showboating during the Gettysburg campaign has been cited as contributing to the Confederate defeat by denying Lee credible reconnaissance prior to the battle

I believe Forrest was a better all round commander in his understanding of battle and logistics

martin

As an independent commander making operational decisions, Forrest was better than Stuart.

These sorts of comparisons always degenerate into attempts to assess that most ephemeral of attributes, the intangibles. How do you decide which is better, pork or chicken?

Any evaluation comparison must first carefully distinguish between strategic vs. tactical acumen. Strategic ability referring to each individual's ability to identify and achieve their theater goals. In this respect, I would rate them evenly, tho I think Forrest's success was achieved more through aggressiveness, while Stuart succeeded more through finesse, maneuver, evasion, bluff and ambush.

Tactics referring to each commander's ability to direct their commands to best effect once battle is joined. Here Forrest has it all over Stuart. In fairness, a lot of Stuart's problems from Brandy Station onward were the result of the Union cavalry arm finally "coming of age."

Historians and gamers will debate about the effects of Stuart's "misadventure" til the cows come home. I have never been much convinced by tea leaf divination of Stuart's motivations for this, that, or whatever else. "Trying to expunge his Brandy Station humiliation." "Showboating for the Richmond papers." "Grinding an axe with a former rival."

Longstreet's "scout" gave Lee all he really needed recon wise. This allowed him to achieve his broad strategic goal. He brought 2 Corps to bear on 2 Union Corps (1st & 11th) and gave them a proper stomping. Unfortunately, Meade had moved more quickly and with greater coordination than Lee expected, and the next morning Lee found himself locked horns with a force he could no longer manhandle.

On paper, Lee had 2 cavalry brigades with him, notwithstanding Stuart's absence. Imboden's irregulars were out foraging. Jenkins' irregulars were scattered pursuing perhaps the most unsavory undertaking ever pursued by members of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Tactically, on the battlefield, Forrest was better. Though Stuart did a very good job of taking over Jackson's corps at Chancellorsville.

But Stuart was much better as the eyes and ears of his army.

Hampton, by the time (in '64) when he succeeded Stuart, was very good at both.

Stuart always struck me as a glory hound, while Forrest seemed to care about beating the Federals as his primary goal.

Jenkins' irregulars were scattered pursuing perhaps the most unsavory undertaking ever pursued by members of the Army of Northern Virginia.

I'm intrigued by this…what was their "unsavory undertaking?"

Jenkins led his men through the Cumberland Valley into Pennsylvania and seized Chambersburg, burning down nearby railroad structures and bridges. During their invasion of Pennsylvania, his brigade, under Jenkins' direction, abducted hundreds of African Americans (most of them free people of color with a few being fugitive slaves), all of whom were forcibly sent southwards and sold into slavery.

Wikipedia

If you are making command ratings for a GAME, I would make them even or similar. They were both good cavalry commanders, better than their peers, and the nuisance and subtlety that is the hallmark of internet discussions are unnecessary when making game rankings.

I think Forrest should rank somewhat higher than Stuart, as his capacity covered the use of combine arms, not just cavalry. Forrest thus was required to see a bigger picture than Stuart often faced.

Oh, and Forrest was indeed a master of deception and bluff— read about his capture of the so-called "Lightning Mule Brigade." Pure bluff, backed by a very clever visual trick that convinced US Colonel Abel Streight to surrender to a force less than a third the size of his own.

But perhaps it's not so much about ranking as ranking within a purpose. Within their typical command purposes, I would say that Forrest and Stuart were equivalent— but Forrest would be broader as to the purposes he could be put to.

No Bedford Forrest was not as good as Stuart.

Forrest was a loner. After threatening to kill Bragg, Davis let him have his own command. He had a hard time answering to anyone. Stuart except for Gettysburg, excelled at the traditional roles of cavalry. He could operate within the system. Although Forrest was adept at tactics and terrain, he had issues with being a subordinate to anyone.

Thanks, guys, for all the input, always helpful and interesting points. Sounds like for the purpose of the game I will leave Stuart a little below Forrest like I have him now. I agree its tough assigning a rating system to leaders, even for just a game.
I have had even more of a challenge with a couple leaders that played critical roles, showed great potential, etc BUT died fairly early in the war so you have to try and make an educated guess. Nathanial Lyon is a perfect example of this. Happy gaming all and stay safe!!

Yes, Lyon would be hard to rate. Great drive, good strategic sense, bold in some ways (splitting his smaller army at Wilson's Creek, much as Lee later did at 2nd Bull Run and Chancellorsville), but then a bit timid with the part under his direction command.

OC is right. Forrest on his own was effective. I would not want to command him in a big battle or campaign. A leader,but a prickly subordinate.

Forrest never threatened to kill Bragg. That is a myth with only one less than credible source that has no corroborating evidence. Read David Powell's third volume of his Chickamauga trilogy or Failure in the Saddle.

I agree Forrest seemed to be at his best when he was given a task then left alone to get it done however he thought was best. I actually decided to rank him a little lower tactically to simple balance out this fact that when part of a army he came with some issues so to speak:) I don't know if he ever actually threatened to kill Bragg or anyone else for that matter but I think its safe to say he probably thought really hard on it and some other officers as well???? Happy gaming all.

If Forrest did threaten to kill Bragg, he is showing good judgement.

A little of comparing apples to oranges. The Western Theater was not as well developed as the Eastern. There was a lot more room for maneuvering. The raids that Forrest and Morgan did to disrupt Union supply was totally different from much of what Stuart did. Forrest often was expected to maintain observation over a large swath of land to keep tabs on Union activity. When needed, Forrest was attached to an Army and usually provided good service until serious divisions occurred about conduct of the operation. The normal freedom of his independent command gave him a sense of superiority and an "I know better" attitude. It's not that Bragg and Hood were known to be superior tacticians. Forrests' tactical acumen was learned on the job whereas Stuart was trained, experienced and had family traditions of service.

I agree Major Mike. We are comparing apples to oranges and roles that each man played in the their respective theatres.

Cleburne 1863,

"…I say to you if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life."

This is from a biography of Forrest, "Battle from the Start" by Brian Wills page 146. Recounted by Forrest's Chief Surgeon Dr. J. B. Cowan who was present in Bragg's tent when Forrest spoke it.

To add to the theme of different fruits. Forrest's command tended to be more like mounted infantry rather than cavalry. Many were armed with rifled or smoothbore muskets. Stuart's command was more of a traditional cavalry type.

The old "Zouave" magazine has a rating for every ACW General in one of its issues. I used it for years when writing up scenarios. The ratings were for JR2 but can be translated to other rules.

I haven't had to use it much in the last several years because there are so many regimental scenario books that give the ratings of the Generals for each scenario.