Where does this gentleman rank among all the worlds generals? I'd put him in the top 20. Top 5 for American generals...

>He was a master skirmisher who infuriated union generals more than any other confederate

Which is not pushing back Union ranks all along the frontline of the war. He was, yes, a very good skirmisher, but you need to be able to do more than that to be considered a world class general.

>He wasn't known so much for battles as he was for disrupting the enemies rear guard and sacking supply depots.

And there are people throughout history who did that much better. Guo Ziyi, Vlad Dracul, William Wallace. Hell, some of them would even do that AND win battles; the Belisarius's and the Khalid's and the Nevsky's of the world.

> To suggest that he wasn't invaluable to the confederates is to be historically ignorant

He was very good at being a nuisance on a secondary front. He was valuable to the CSA, but being valuable at harassment is a long, LONG way to being a top 20 general of all time, or evne a top 5 general in U.S. military history.

I agree, I'm not OP

Im not talking in terms of world generals but in terms of civil war generals. You said he was a only decent cavalry which just isn't true

Was Charles Manson a time traveller?

>I think you need to work on your reading comprehension

whatchoo mean?

So innovative that he basically invented maneuver warfare before the invention of tanks.

Given him a division of T-34s and he could've worked wonders.

Buncha yankee revisionists itt. Forrest is a legend

If you're only talking in comparison to other ACW generals, than yes, he is one of the best at what he did. However, especially in regards to the "decent" comment, I was replying to the OP, who is comparing him to

A) All other American military commanders of any era
B) All military commanders anywhere, anytime.

In terms of all time American generals he's still top 10, being the greatest cavalry commander of the civil war automatically grants him top 10

>In terms of all time American generals he's still top 10,

Unlikely, given that he has no strategic qualifications whatsoever, nor did he ever demonstrate any real ability outside of a skirmishing role. I'm inclined to put main battle guys well ahead of him.

> being the greatest cavalry commander of the civil war automatically grants him top 10

Ok, I'm probably going to regret asking this, but how do you come to that conclusion, even granting him the title of best ACW cav commander?

>That image
>That post
Damn Dixies get dumber, more detatched, and more romantic about their past every year.

I'm surprised so many Americans continue to ideologically attach themselves to a rebel contingent of human rights violators and their apologists who existed well over half of American history ago, for the sad period of less than half a decade.

This sad confederate so-called nation that Southerners continue to hold more dear than the one they actually live in committed human rights violations so egregious that in comparison modern Americans invade places worlds away, for less.

Really makes you think.

To call Forrest one of the top generals of the US Civil War is a stretch on a good day. He was at best one of the top Cavalry Raiding Unit Commanders on either side during the Murahkan Civil War. This I'll acknowledge - absolutely nothing beyond that.

In comparing J E B Stuart and Forrest:

>When endeavouring to make comparisons of these two generals, account should be given to the views of their respective friends and foes.
>Certainly Generals Joseph Johnston and Lee thought highly of Stuart as did Stonewall Jackson and the rest of the Confederate hierarchy in Richmond. Little or no reference or comment can be found to the views by Union generals as to their opinions of Stuart.
>In Forrest’s case, bearing in mind the bias in favour of West Point graduates in the Confederate mind, General Joseph Johnston has said: “...if Forrest had been an educated soldier no other Confederate general would have been heard of.”
>Johnston was later reported to say: “General Forrest was the greatest soldier the Civil War produced even according to Lee and Jackson the full measure of their fame.”
>Again, it is reported that after the surrender at Appamattox, when asked by a Union officer who he thought his greatest general was, Lee is alleged to have replied: “Sir, a gentleman I have never had the pleasure to meet, General Nathan Bedford Forrest.”
>Those who came against Forrest came to an early realisation that this was no common soldier and no ordinary commander. Grant reflecting upon the whole course of the Civil War he rated Forrest as: “about the ablest cavalry general in the South.”
>Sherman made many comments about Forrest including: “...that devil Forrest who must be hunted down and killed if it costs" and “...the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side”
>Again, Sherman who was considered to be a great strategist said of Forrest: “...he had a genius for strategy which was original, and to me incomprehensible. There was no theory or art of war by which I could calculate with any degree of certainty what Forrest was up to. He always seemed to know what I was going to do next.”

>muh human rights
I hate the South too but you're just a cuck m8.

>Thomas speaking of Hood’s army after the battle of Nashville, said: “With the exception of his rearguard his army had become a disheartened and disorganised rabble... The rearguard was undaunted and firm and did its work bravely to the last.”
>Hardly could a soldier have won more sincere recognition from those against whom he fought.
>Perhaps the most unbiased opinion of Forrest came out of a meeting during the First World War when a British officer and US Colonel Seviers met in a rare bookshop in London. The British officer remarked that he was looking for a copy of Wyeth’s life of Forrest. He went on to say that officers of the British cavalry service studied Forrest’s campaigns and methods and regarded him as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of English speaking commanders of mounted troops. The British officer was Sir Douglas Haig whose troops had just fought and won the first battle of Ypres in France.
>Based on all available information including various opinions expressed from both sides of the conflict, the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the Wizard of the Saddle, Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest, was the best commander of cavalry, both in the Confederate Army and throughout the Civil War itself.

Source: americancivilwar.asn.au/meet/2008_02_stuart_or_forrest.pdf

I think these quotes from the great generals on either side solidify Forrest as the greatest civil war cavalry commander

Could you actually answer the question? Even if we agree, for the sake of the argument, that Forrest was the best cavalry commander of the ACW, (which, by the way, glowing reports from his contemporaries do not definitively prove), how do you get from there to the conclusion that he was a top 10 U.S. military general of all time?

I think Stuart's effay as fuck get-up says otherwise

That image is funny.
I had not yet seen a racist interpretation of the civil war that also denounced the confederates.

You see something new every day.

Really makes you think.

Nonetheless you have not proven to me that slavery isn't a violation of human rights. The only thing you have proven to me is that you don't regard DER NIGGRZ as human, which really, when you think about it, refutes nobody's humanity but your own.

>I'm surprised so many Americans continue to ideologically attach themselves to a rebel contingent of human rights violators and their apologists who existed well over half of American history ago, for the sad period of less than half a decade.

Thing is, the Confederacy remains one of the few sources of tangible Southern history and identity for the people living there. It's a way of distinguishing themselves from the rest of the nation, even though they have to engage in an absurd amount of mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance in order to scrape together anything worth being proud of. The South hasn't ever stopped having an inferiority complex with regards to the North, so reminiscing about their rebellion provides a measure of nostalgia and camaraderie.

I'm not trying to justify it; only highlight how pathetic and intellectually dishonest it is.

t. Yankee parasite

Don't worry, you'll get your's soon enough.

>muh white supremacy

The real redpill is that the CSA was anti-white. It would be Rhodesia 2.0 if it managed to survive the war.

I came to the conclusion that he was the greatest Calvary commander based on the quotes by the men who fought against him/with him. And the fact that the civil war is probably the second most important war after the revolution for America, and he was the most prolific cavalry commander in that war, despite being greatly outnumbered, that's how I conclude that he's a top 10 general

Nah dude, Rhodesia wasn't in imminent threat of being continually re-invaded by a country far larger and stronger than itself.

It would be more like a cross between Rhodesia and just before WW1 Belgium.

Human rights are bullshit.

The CSA was not anti-white you mental gymnast. Pic related is documentary evidence.

The CSA was merely too stupid to realize that it was fighting against its own best interests. That doesn't make them anti-white.

CSA was confused!
It hurt itself in its confusion!

Protip: when your country is 70% nigger it doesn't matter one bit whether they're in chains or not, you're gonna get overwhelmed. There's a reason why the fully white North was developed and industrialized while the racial cesspit that was the South was a total shithole and to a significant degree still is.

>want to keep blacks enslaved on the premise that they are unequal to whites
>northcucks disagree and wage war
>free the slaves
>hundred years later blacks ruin almost every major American city
>crime against whites rampant
>their "culture" completely degenerated the country

Thanks Yankees!

If by bullshit you mean "spooks."

Sure.

If by bullshit you mean "difficult to implement in a relatively maintainable form."

We'll see.

>ABYSS TIER
Niggers should be equal to whites

>SHIT TIER
Niggers should be enslaved

>GOD TIER
There should be no niggers

There would be no blacks in the US to start with if it wasn't for southerners.

>I came to the conclusion that he was the greatest Calvary commander based on the quotes by the men who fought against him/with him.

That is a retarded methodology. You don't even lay out (besides a generl view of cock-sucking, I guess), as to what makes a good cavalry general a good cavalry general. For instance, you could argue that the primary role of ACW era-cavalry is to support the infantry and artillery with things like reconnaissance, foraging, protection from ambush, and pursuit. Forrest rarely operated in any sort of support function, preferring instead to raid behind the lines rather than coordinate closely with his own slower forces. If you use a set of criteria such as that, you're probably going to get better results out of someone like Stuart or Sheridan.

>And the fact that the civil war is probably the second most important war after the revolution for America, and he was the most prolific cavalry commander in that war, despite being greatly outnumbered, that's how I conclude that he's a top 10 general

And that reasoning is so bad that I don't even want to call it retarded out of fear of offending those who count to potato. Someone can be a good general despite being in a minor war. The mere fact that someone is a great cavalry general, the midget of the three primary arms in his own war, says nothing about his overall military effectiveness compared to people in other arms of service. It completely overlooks the differences between strategy, tactics, and operations; you get quite a few people saying that Scott is the best ACW general, despite never having a field command. (Well, in that war, I don't mean to imply he never held field command). Even according to your own logic, why not extend it further? The Virginia campaign was by far the most important in the ACW, why should we consider anyone who operated anywhere else as a contender for a top post in the ACW?

>southerners were the only people involved in the slave trade

Imagine being this dense

You imply that the South failed to industrialize because

A) Too many stupid black people.
B) Black people make industrialization impossible.

The South failed to industrialize because
A) Metal machinery did worse in damp climates
B) Slavery and agriculture provided less incentive to industrialize (just like outsourcing white collar labor to third-world nations disincentivizes some medium-sized companies to invest in research and development)
C) Fewer urban population centers means less universities, means less education.

I find my reasons more compelling than yours. I guess I'm just a cuck.

No, literal bullshit. Blacks weren't citizens and thus weren't subjected to "rights".

Which is why northern states were practically 99% white while it was the south that looked like Africa 2.0 both in demographics and in development.

I think I'm gonna take the opinions of actual generals who fought in the war rather than the opinion of someone on Veeky Forums, sorry.

>it was just too damn wet !!!
Southcucks clutching for straws

user, you should really look to see if there is some kind of remedial course in your area that can bring you up to the reading proficiency of an average 12 year old. This is the third time this thread that you've completely misunderstood a basic, open sentence, and instead responded with something that doesn't actually address the issuet.

>Crime against whites rampant.

1) That narrative is overblown, though it has some basis in reality, I will concede. I have seen people targeted for being white. It is no joke. Tensions are high in America.

2) This is human nature. Whites, given the chance, behave in just as aggressive and retaliatory a manner as this. If whites ever became a minority (and they will, given the trends), they will lash out, form more gangs, embrace lawlessness, and generally do anything they can to get back on top.

Shit, whites have done this in America even when they WERE on top. Remember when the Klan was 3 million strong in the 20s and practiced vigilante justice? Remember, as least as recently as the 60s, when simply recognizing that blacks received unequal treatment was regarded as communist sympathy? You might call this image "cucked" but it is real historical imagery, with a real quote, demonstrating the hypocrisy of the system Americans have inherited from their forefathers.

Black gang members over the past few decades, it is established, mostly kill each other.

Most capital crime is against one's own kind. People are sick of themselves more than anything else

see

You didn't say human rights are bullshit for blacks. You said human rights are bullshit.

Which is it? Don't move the goalposts.

They are citizens now, by the way. Do you think that should have never happened?

>Do you think that should have never happened?
Absolutely not.

>Whites, given the chance, behave in just as aggressive and retaliatory a manner as this. If whites ever became a minority (and they will, given the trends), they will lash out, form more gangs, embrace lawlessness, and generally do anything they can to get back on top.
Source: your anus. Whites already did become a minority in South Africa and the shit you describe didn't materialize.

Wonderful

All I know is that he was fucking scary.
>charges a union line by himself
>picks up some poor grunt and starts carrying him back to confederate lines until someone manages to shoot him in the spine
>still makes it back to the rebel lines somehow and recovers
Makes you wonder what rituals Lee and Jackson had to use to summon him.

>I am INCREDIBLY stupid.

Remember how, when you started off screeching autistically at how a ">decent
decent" evaluation undersold Forrest, you were actually only talking about the ACW, , overlooking how both I and the OP were talking about generals in general? Or about how you get from "Best cavalry commander of ACW" on one hand, to top 10 general overall? Because I asked that here, and then you went on about how his contemporaries thought he was a great cavalry commander.

Most directly, you've responded to an attack on your virtually non-existent methodology for evaluating a general in the abstract, especially how you compare generals in different wars or in different branches of service; with an appeal to authority.

You have, on at least 3 separate occasions, COMPLETELY FUCKING MISSED THE POINT. Your responses were not even relevant, let alone correct. Do you fucking get it? Because if you don't, I don't see why I should waste my time since you're clearly incapable of communicating in English.

And yet it has materialized in America multiple times. And it is America I am talking about. I have watched the cultural attitudes of my people for a long time. I have seen whites and blacks behave in incredibly sad retaliatory behavior. Especially economically disenfranchised ones.

see

>And yet it has materialized in America multiple times.
When? Whites were never a minority in America, even today they still hold a slight majority.

How are generals who fought in the war going to weigh in on the lack of reading comprehension of a man who was born long after all of them died?

This is the exact art of war according to Sun Tzu, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

Most of those you cited only had to win a single battle or two. The civil war was a war of attrition. You keep prancing on about "decisive battles" like some meme tier hideki tojo.

How is a Veeky Forums autist going to think he knows better than actual generals when it comes to gauging skill in war?

>Most of those you cited only had to win a single battle or two.

But that's wrong you fucking retard. Vlad Tepes is the only one that could really qualify for that objection, and there are plenty more where that came from. If you're really so fanny-flustered, put in the Black Prince instead of the impaler to represent our "royal raider" category.

> You keep prancing on about "decisive battles" like some meme tier hideki tojo.

Where have I said that you cock-gobbling idiot? I've said that good cavalry skirmishers/raiders are quite common, Forrest never really displayed any other talent, and that pointing to one such skirmisher in particular isn't going to make him a top 20 in the world general, or even a top 5 American general. A truly great general needs to display a wider skill-set.

I mean retaliatory behavior.

Whites in America often engage in retaliatory behavior when they even THINK they might become a minority soon.

In short, human nature makes us lash out when we're bottom bitches in any context.

>retaliatory behavior
Must've been a long time ago since the whites have been completely cucked out of doing anything in the past 100 years.

>How is a Veeky Forums autist going to think he knows better than actual generals when it comes to gauging skill in war?

Who said I did? I said that you need to have a METHODOLOGY to determine what makes a good general and what doesn't, rather than mining for favorable quotes about a guy. Because SHOCKER, I can mine for favorable quotes about lots of generals! And you know what? Most of them won't even be ACW cavalry commanders! When I hear lots of praise loaded on about general Devers, about how he trained half the WW2 tank force, and of the masterful stroke that was Dragoon and how it lead to the largest scale capture of enemy forces in U.S. military history, are you going to go

>BUT LOOK! SHERMAN SAID HE WAS GREAT!

to justify how Forrest is a better general than someone like Devers? Do you honestly comprehend how fucking retarded you're being?

Now, I know Methodology is one of those big, complicated words, that you probably have trouble with. Here's a dictionary definition.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/methodology

Or, in child speak, since we know you have trouble understanding English, it's the set of reasons someone has in order to believe something is true.

I'm sure the Black Prince would have done soo much better against the modern logistics of the USA. Back then most kingdoms would be lucky to field entire military forces equivalent to the troops present in singular CW battles. As if he wasn't just killing defenseless French villagers and calling it a victory. [spoiler]If he was so great why didn't he become king? To the victor goeth the spoils[/spoiler]

You fail to appreciate scale and the impact of the transportation, agricultural, and industrial revolutions. Burn a farm back in the dark ages and you've just starved the enemy populace. Burn a farm in Pennsylvania and they will just buy from somewhere else.

>I'm sure the Black Prince would have done soo much better against the modern logistics of the USA.

What basis do you have to claim that Edward of Woodstock would perform badly if thrust out of his time and into the ACW that you can't turn around and say would be equally proving that Forrest would do badly if he was dumped into command of a 14th century Chevuchee? And why would either comparison be worth anything?

> Back then most kingdoms would be lucky to field entire military forces equivalent to the troops present in singular CW battles.

So fucking what? Yes, generally got bigger and more well armed and professional over time. I suppose that means that pretty much any random WW2 general is a better one than Forrest?

> As if he wasn't just killing defenseless French villagers and calling it a victory.

How do you like being objectively wrong?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers

>You fail to appreciate scale and the impact of the transportation, agricultural, and industrial revolutions

No, I'm just staying on point, namely a discussion of generals throughout history and where Forrest ranks among them. And surprise, there's actually quite a lot of competition.

This is legit autism right here. You're arguing that Forrest was only a decent general based on what you think makes a good cavalry commander (he wasn't traditional in his style, his unorthodox raiding was what made him great) when almost every major general in the war called him the best or one of the best. You ramble paragraphs about methodology which makes you seem like a legit aspie. Again, ill side with Sherman and Lee in their opinion of Forrest as compared to you, faggot

Despite your poor wording I think I've gotten the gist of your post. Are you so daft that you don't realize the level of competence necessary in a general these days is much higher than in the past. Take ancient greece for example. The prevailing doctrine was a godamn line. The doctrine that beat that doctrine was just a mass flank attack.

Besides, the incompetence of the French during the first half of the war was so proverbial that it essentially gives the lie to British claims of competence.

>No, I'm just staying on point, namely a discussion of generals throughout history and where Forrest ranks among them

You aren't staying on point at all, because you are comparing people who are either rulers of countries, or in command of extremely significant forces. You are vomiting whatever names you have read without context, otherwise you would make more apt comparisons. He isn't Alexander the Great. He isn't Genghis Khan. He's Iphikrates.

>You're arguing that Forrest was only a decent general based on what you think makes a good cavalry commander

Now we're up to five times completely missing the point. I'm arguing that you can't have a list of top generals without a set of reasons that you grade generals on. And depending on what criteria you think are more or less important, you can't even grade cavalry generals next to other cavalry generals, let alone something like a cavalry general next to a staff officer.

And despite the fact that I asked you for this, repeatedly, you kept quoting the same fucking guys about Forrest, while never actually giving a set of standards. Again, why not say Scott was the best general of the Civil War? He actually came up with a war-winning strategy. I, or anyone else can claim that's better than any number of raids, and you can't disagree with that statement unless you have a set of values as to how you measure how something like a strategy compares to a successful cavalry raid.

>You ramble paragraphs about methodology which makes you seem like a legit aspie.

No, it just makes you seem like an idiot or someone who is sucking forrest's cock, because you can't actually justify your opinion.

>Again, ill side with Sherman and Lee in their opinion of Forrest as compared to you, faggot

I have never expressed an opinion about Forrest except insofar as a cavalry commander compared to literally everyone ever. And yes, I'll go ahead and make claims that Subotai was a better cavalry commander than Forrest, and what's more, I can actually back that up with a set of reasons. So that makes 6 reading comprehension fails.

Please kill yourself.

Ok. Still gonna side with Sherman and Lee on this one though

He's not even in the top 5000 commanders of all time

>reading comprehension
speak for yourself retard

>Despite your poor wording I think I've gotten the gist of your post.

What poor wording? I was being quite clear.

> Are you so daft that you don't realize the level of competence necessary in a general these days is much higher than in the past.

Actually, I would contest that, and argue that it takes a completely different set of skills to command an ancient army as it does to command a modern army, and in any case, that comparison is pretty damn useless for the discussion at hand.

> The prevailing doctrine was a godamn line. The doctrine that beat that doctrine was just a mass flank attack.

That's not actually true, but even if we work with your appalling lack of knowledge of ancient Greek warfare, phalanx battles require a great deal of skill. You need to know how much to back up before charging so that your men can pierce an enemy Linthroax (not an easy task without the momentum of the charge), and realizing that your forces are probably organized by a wide array of different local standars, none of whom train together, which in turn means that when you give the order to charge, you can't be sure that everyone will charge at the same rate. In fact, because of the lack of clear communication, you might not even have everyone receive the order to charge at the same time. A strategos didn't have things like an aide-de camp or a staff to figure these things out for him.

Ancient warfare had quite a bit of complexity to it, and if you want to claim that it doesn't, you're going to need a lot more than a dismissive line of a Veeky Forums post.

> Are you so daft that you don't realize the level of competence necessary in a general these days is much higher than in the past.

So again, if you're going to make that argument, why not extend it? Any given brigade commander in WW2 is a better leader than Forrest. Warfare got even more large, complex, and abstract by that point.

1/2

>You aren't staying on point at all, because you are comparing people who are either rulers of countries, or in command of extremely significant forces. You are vomiting whatever names you have read without context, otherwise you would make more apt comparisons. He isn't Alexander the Great. He isn't Genghis Khan. He's Iphikrates.

OP did not give any qualifications, he said best among American generals with no time period given, and best among world generals, again no time period given. Why then, are they not apt comparisons merely because their commands were distinct? How do you come up with a best of all time list and not run into that problem?

2/2

What particular competence do they have to discuss WW2 generals? Or counterinsurgent commanders in the modern era? Or anything else that anyone could bring up after they died?

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. If you are the person who claimed Forrest was only a decent commander, you're wrong. If you're claiming he wasn't one of the best in the civil war, you're wrong again. That's that. No methodology autism, no revisionism on your part, Forrest was one of the most ruthlessly vicious generals in American history. Historians know it, generals know it. Paragraph splooging Veeky Forums aspie doesn't seem to know it

> If you are the person who claimed Forrest was only a decent commander, you're wrong.

That is me, and if I'm wrong, what makes me wrong? Bear in mind, I've been comparing him to literally every other general ever to take command in any war ever.

>No methodology autism, no revisionism on your part, Forrest was one of the most ruthlessly vicious generals in American history.

Too bad none of that means anything. Effectiveness is not based on ruthlessness or viciousness. How does Forrest's viciousness make him a better general than say, Joseph Stilwell or Omar Bradley?

>Historians know it, generals know it. Paragraph splooging Veeky Forums aspie doesn't seem to know it

So? Literally so fucking what? Again, how do you prove (other than to a claim of "viciousness") that say, Forrest was a better general, even in the context of just talking about the American Civil War and not everything ever, than Winfield Scott? Or Henry Jackson Hunt? It's almost like you need to have some kind of system for comparing different types of generals how did different things.

>So again, if you're going to make that argument, why not extend it? Any given brigade commander in WW2 is a better leader than Forrest. Warfare got even more large, complex, and abstract by that point.

Well there you have made a mistake. I wasn't pointing out modernity as one of his qualities. By all accounts he was a savage man and the CSA's logistical situation was in a state of at least semi-collapse for the duration of the conflict. I was pointing out that the logistical superiority of the United States in that and all subsequent wars imbalances the scales in such an asymmetric manner, never seen before on earth, that anyone capable of putting up a fight gets a prize.

>Any given brigade commander in WW2 is a better leader than Forrest. Warfare got even more large, complex, and abstract by that point.

Given a larger talent pool and educational opportunities, it is nothing short of a mathematical certainty that more competent commanders would exist in the latter period. Which is the exact argument I am making, it is easier to be a big fish in a smaller pond. It has never been harder for one man to take the reigns and truly lead.

>i never said decisive etc

Your entire argument is based on relative decisiveness, whereas I'm talking pound for pound versus the matchup.

>That is me, and if I'm wrong, what makes me wrong?

-refusing orders to surrender at Donelson, he took the majority of his command and escaped through an unguarded path (the rest of the fort could've easily escaped if they had followed)
-he fought with distinction at Shiloh
-his unrelenting raids on garrisons and supply lines in the western theatre halted the fall of Vicksburg by several months
-foiled an attempt to cut the Western and Atlantic Railroad, a vital supply line for the Confederacy’s Army of Tennessee
-not only held the right flank at Chickamauga, but had the gall to chase Union forces further north
-defeated a numerically superior Union force at Brice’s Cross Roads

I think these things account for more than being just a decent commander. Mind you he was outnumbered in pretty much every fight he was involved in. Comparing him to someone like Scott or Hunt is stupid, considering the circumstances under which they fought in. He was extremely effective at what he did, and he proved to be the biggest annoyance for the Union the entire war, as confirmed by all of the quotes above. Idk if you're some yank faggot with a vendetta against him, but to deny his skill is to simply deny history

>Well there you have made a mistake. I wasn't pointing out modernity as one of his qualities.

You claimed, in post>you don't realize the level of competence necessary in a general these days is much higher than in the past.

How is that not claiming that the general of the mid 19th century had a "higher level of competence" than the general of the 5th century B.C.? And how can you not see that the corollary of such a statement is that a more recent general still has an even higher level of competence?

>By all accounts he was a savage man

So what? By all accounts Vlad Tepes made him look like a flower child. Does that make the Impaler prince a better general than Forrest? Why is "savageness" even a relevant metric to consider?

> and the CSA's logistical situation was in a state of at least semi-collapse for the duration of the conflict.

Which is true of a lot of generals in a lot of wars for their particular conflicts. How does that make Forrest special?

>. I was pointing out that the logistical superiority of the United States in that and all subsequent wars imbalances the scales in such an asymmetric manner, never seen before on earth, that anyone capable of putting up a fight gets a prize.

In post you make no subsequent mention of American warfare, or of logistics in war.. You hop right into a discussion of ancient Greek hoplite warfare. In any case, even if we're just talking about American generals in regards to how they had a much easier logistical time of things (which is of course not definitively true, why don't you look up Joseph Stilwell?), doesn't actually mean that they are great or poor commanders, or that their opponents are great or poor commanders. Do you consider guys like Von Kleist, Deng Hua, and Vo Nguyen Giap as amazing generals for putting up a fight against a modern U.S.?
1/3

The only way it can even be tangentially relevant is the claim of comparison between Forrest and Edward of Woodville, but again, you've given little reason to suppose Eddie wouldn't do something similar, if he was switched in places with Forrest.

>Given a larger talent pool and educational opportunities, it is nothing short of a mathematical certainty that more competent commanders would exist in the latter period.

Actually, it is not, because you've given no indication that there is a greater talent pool; after all, not everyone wants to join the military, and especially depending on what society you live in, that might be considered a more or less socially acceptable course. You'd have a hard time making a case that Song China of the 13th century had a smaller overall talent pool than say, England of the same time period, since it had something like 10 times the population and more wealth per capita; and yet given their tremendous military incompetence, you'd have a great deal of trouble claiming that they had better, or even good generals.

Furthermore, command itself has changed. Once upon a time, the general was often the guy who equipped the troops, possibly trained the troops, made arrangements, if any, for the supplying of the troops on the campaign, devised tactics for any battles, organized foraging, medical care, everything in the camp, etc. In modern warfare, a lot of those roles are done by different people, diffusing the effort. Technology, especially communications technology, has enormously simplified command in many ways. With things like telephone and radio, a WW2 era commander could get more or less a real time picture of the battlefield; whereas his sort of counterpart trying to run a freewheeling cavalry skirmish in the Renaissance would be at the mercy of runners and shouting loudly, or the use of flags to issue commands, requiring greater of that intangible "skill" to be able to get his army to do what he wants it to.

2/3

I wouldn't argue that armies are commanded better today than they were in the past, but to make the jump from there to saying that it is because the commanders themselves are better is hardly proven.

>Your entire argument is based on relative decisiveness, whereas I'm talking pound for pound versus the matchup.

If you're trying to winnow out, however you're going to do it, the "best" generals of all time, or even the best generals of a particular nation over a centuries long period of time, a pound for pound matchup, if it means what I think you mean with it, namely getting a lot done with relatively small amounts of resources, is going to necessarily favor the successful raider types, and not say, the strategists, the staff officers, the aggressive conquerors. Why say that is the "right" way to measure things? I would think that the only way to "fairly" evaluate is to construct little thought experiments around what would happen if the general in question is replaced by a hypothetical "Average man", who always makes a normal call, never one that's disastrously idiotic, never anything that's remarkably clever or inspirational, average in every respect at every time; and then look to see where the difference in that military's performance is the greatest effected.

3/3

Why the fuck would Forrest get so much praise if he was only decent?

>Mind you he was outnumbered in pretty much every fight he was involved in. Comparing him to someone like Scott or Hunt is stupid, considering the circumstances under which they fought in

But that's just it. I made that comment, the first in the thread, in response to OP, who was literally comparing him to "all time" and "everyone in the U.S.". I'm not going to contest that Forrest did a lot with his cavalry command, but if you want to compare him to literally everyone ever, and not a much, much smaller subset of "other ACW cavalry commanders", being effective at a bunch of small beans missions isn't actually that big of a deal. When you stack him up against guys who say, conquered most of Russia with 10,000 men in what was supposedly a recon-in-force mission, or marched an army into Tibet and managed to outmaneuver the local forces so badly that you force them to surrender for lack of supply, or shattered an army twice his size and better equipped to seize all of Anatolia within a year and a half, that's pretty small beans.

> Comparing him to someone like Scott or Hunt is stupid, considering the circumstances under which they fought in.

Why is it stupid? And if you're trying to come up with even something like "the best American general" avoiding the comparison is impossible. Yes, they fought in very different manners even in the same war. What makes the cavalry commander necessarily better than the strategist or the artilleryman, who were also extremely effective at what they did?

>Idk if you're some yank faggot with a vendetta against him, but to deny his skill is to simply deny history

I'm not denying his skill. I'm saying there are an enormous number of people, even within just the context of the American Civil War, nevermind every other war ever, who were also extremely skilled. Pointing to Forrest and saying HE DA BESTEST EVA is stupid.

Why would anyone say Pyrrhus was a great general when Alexander was better? It turns out that "decent" when compared to the best of all time is actually still pretty praiseworthy.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm arguing that he's the best ever, im arguing that he was more than just "decent", which you claimed. And comparing him to generals who were at an advantage (Scott, Hunt, etc) is stupid, its a false equivalence

>How is that not claiming that the general of the mid 19th century had a "higher level of competence" than the general of the 5th century B.C.? And how can you not see that the corollary of such a statement is that a more recent general still has an even higher level of competence?

Do you even bother to read full posts before replying to them?

>You'd have a hard time making a case that Song China of the 13th century had a smaller overall talent pool than say, England of the same time period, since it had something like 10 times the population and more wealth per capita; and yet given their tremendous military incompetence, you'd have a great deal of trouble claiming that they had better, or even good generals.

Are you pathologically unable to intuit the differences between matchups? Do you even know who the Song fought? How basically engaging in piratical activity from an unassailable base is so frivolous a challenge as to be incomparable if not laughed out of town.

>the general was often the guy who equipped the troops, possibly trained the troops, made arrangements, if any, for the supplying of the troops on the campaign, devised tactics for any battles, organized foraging, medical care, everything in the camp, etc.

Which is an altogether terrible way to fight a war. Zhuge Liang was defeated by the superior logistics of Cao Wei. He did everything himself. Sima Yi knew how to delegate, he knew how to lead. In this allegory he is the superior general.

>why don't you look up Joseph Stilwell

I'm on the fence about stillwell, since everything he did can be lent to radically different interpretation. Either he wasted men and material in a worthless jungle, or he was the best general ever, and should have commanded in Europe kai loipa. Both interpretations have traction.

Is that the guy that founded the KKK?
based

>I don't know where you got the idea that I'm arguing that he's the best ever, im arguing that he was more than just "decent"

Because when the standard of comparison of that original post is literally "against every general in every war ever", it's hard to make him out to be great.

> And comparing him to generals who were at an advantage (Scott, Hunt, etc) is stupid, its a false equivalence

So then you can't call him a decent general either, since it's apparently a false equivalence to compare him to anything other than another ACW cavalry commander. What does that get you?

>Do you even bother to read full posts before replying to them?

Pot, meet kettle. The full post of is explicitly making mention of how a more modern general is more advanced or more competent of an ancient one.

>Are you pathologically unable to intuit the differences between matchups? Do you even know who the Song fought?

Yes, of course I did. But that should be irrelevant when comparing actual command acumen of Song generals. You can have good generals against skilled and dangerous opponents. For instance, it would be the height of idiocy to claim that only the Allies could have good generals in WW2 up until about 42, and then when the tide turned, only the Axis could have good generals. You claimed in post that a larger talent pool proves, with "mathematical certainty" a better quality of commander. That's idiotic. It is quite possible for one polity to have a "larger talent pool" and remain having inferior generals. For that matter, the Mongols themselves repeatedly out-commanded the Song, despite having an absolutely tiny talent pool in comparison.

1/2

>How basically engaging in piratical activity from an unassailable base is so frivolous a challenge as to be incomparable if not laughed out of town.

Are you implying that one British general's (You do know there were more British generals than the Black Prince in the 13th century, and more wars than just the one against France, right?) chevuchee was the only form of warfare engaged in 13th century England?

>Which is an altogether terrible way to fight a war. Zhuge Liang was defeated by the superior logistics of Cao Wei. He did everything himself. Sima Yi knew how to delegate, he knew how to lead. In this allegory he is the superior general

No it isn't, because we're overlooking the fact that Wei had what? 12 times the population of Shu-Han? If overall victory is the sole benchmark of success, and I for one would not support that, then Forrest is a shit commander because he lost. If it isn't, then you need to parse out how exactly it was that you had superior command on the part of the Wei forces, and not say, superior resources, or the advantage of interior LOCs.

And yes, it pays to specialize. Guess what? That wasn't a luxury that most ancient societies had. You may as well criticize them for something equally out of their reach, like not inoculating their troops against disease.

>I'm on the fence about stillwell, since everything he did can be lent to radically different interpretation.

His logistical situation being shit is not particualry "open to interpretation". It was shit. Whether or not he worked well within those limitations is an open question, but his existence rebuts the claim that

>the logistical superiority of the United States in that and all subsequent wars imbalances the scales in such an asymmetric manner, never seen before on earth, that anyone capable of putting up a fight gets a prize

2/2

>Nathan Bedford Forrest
>Founder of the KKK

Debatable at best

youwereliedtoabout.com/nbf.htm

"""""American""""""
traitor scum

>Patton was a terrible commander.
user...

Go swear your oath of loyalty to the crown then faggot

This guy is a literal retard

>patton was terrible
>forrest was only decent

And he types so much and says so little, with such flawed arguments.

>well compared to x he's shit!

Idiot can't into context

The question involved tactics and competency, Rommel, Santa Anna, Napoleon, Yamamoto; ideology aside their military prowess is the point. The South had limited resources, and a finite supply of men yet managed to dominate the battle field for 3 years. Attrition and dwindling supplies was the strategy used to beat them. This thread deals with military genius, try and keep your stock political script out of it.

Zef is not a counterargument

If only Davis and Lee weren't such rulecucks. Guerilla warfare would have saved the South.

>Patton was a terrible commander
t. Britbong cucked out of a victory