Boomer wrote:I don't know, Forrest was known as one of the few civil war generals who killed (many) enemy soldiers with his own hands. He had numerous horses shot out from under him (from charging at the enemy), and his feud with Bragg resulted in death threats. I'd say from reading what I have about him, the quickly angered trait is quite appropriate.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:I don’t think we have the evidence that outbursts of anger were a daily occurrence and effected his subordinates.
That is what the trait speaks to. He was Furious with Bragg in taking his troops without consulting him. He was also angry at Ft. Pillow at the excesses of one of his battalions. But it seems more a rare occurrence than a general demeanor. On the contrary, he was well loved and respected by his officers and men. On that count alone the trait does not apply.
Nor does it seem to have been evident in his private life. There is one account where he took an ax away from a man and knocked him to the ground because the man had repeatedly beaten his wife and refused to stop.
His anger seemed to only come out when he was concerned with the treatment of others.
Also you are making assumptions. Being brave and audacious does not require anyone to be angry, nor does killing in battle. Anger usually clouds judgment. With something on the order of 57 wins and one loss it speaks of pretty keen judgment, to me. And I think that one battle was a desperate rear guard action IIRC.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:I don’t think we have the evidence that outbursts of anger were a daily occurrence and effected his subordinates.
That is what the trait speaks to. He was Furious with Bragg in taking his troops without consulting him. He was also angry at Ft. Pillow at the excesses of one of his battalions. But it seems more a rare occurrence than a general demeanor. On the contrary, he was well loved and respected by his officers and men. On that count alone the trait does not apply.
Nor does it seem to have been evident in his private life. There is one account where he took an ax away from a man and knocked him to the ground because the man had repeatedly beaten his wife and refused to stop.
His anger seemed to only come out when he was concerned with the treatment of others.
Also you are making assumptions. Being brave and audacious does not require anyone to be angry, nor does killing in battle. Anger usually clouds judgment. With something on the order of 57 wins and one loss it speaks of pretty keen judgment, to me. And I think that one battle was a desperate rear guard action IIRC.
Captain_Orso wrote:Until somebody shows me, beyond the single incident with Bragg, a history of Forrest fighting with his leaders and/or subordinates, I will stick to my opinion.
One thing that has crossed my mind though, and that is that Forrest didn't often lead other than cavalry and when he did have infantry under his command it was in limited numbers. So he was great at leading smallish forces. His promotions can be seen as rewards and honor for his service and success, but did not go hand in hand with moving up in the chain of command as far as the number of troops he commanded went as was usual during the war. The military was always looking for the right men to promote and put in charge of even more men. With Forrest I think everybody knew where his place was in the army and nobody would have tried to put him in charge of a division or a corp and expect him to excel at it.
So giving him 'Quickly Angered' does work against having him missuses as something that he wasn't, and that in itself is okay with me. But he's still not hotheaded
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:Incase you're keeping count at home:
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:He made death threats against Bragg,
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:argued with Hood
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:stabbed a man in his command during an argument
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:and possibly committed war crimes at Fort Pillow
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:and his anger drove him
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:to become Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:That seems like anger issues IMO.
Captain_Orso wrote:Until somebody shows me, beyond the single incident with Bragg, a history of Forrest fighting with his leaders and/or subordinates, I will stick to my opinion.
One thing that has crossed my mind though, and that is that Forrest didn't often lead other than cavalry and when he did have infantry under his command it was in limited numbers. So he was great at leading smallish forces. His promotions can be seen as rewards and honor for his service and success, but did not go hand in hand with moving up in the chain of command as far as the number of troops he commanded went as was usual during the war. The military was always looking for the right men to promote and put in charge of even more men. With Forrest I think everybody knew where his place was in the army and nobody would have tried to put him in charge of a division or a corp and expect him to excel at it.
So giving him 'Quickly Angered' does work against having him missuses as something that he wasn't, and that in itself is okay with me. But he's still not hotheaded
Captain_Orso wrote:Do you know what the circumstances were?
B0rn_C0nfused wrote:http://www.tennessee-scv.org/fg.htm
Here is some info on the Forrest Gould incident. The author even starts off saying "Nathan Bedford Forrest was noted for his hot temper"
Captain_Orso wrote:Yup, just read it. Okay, I stand corrected . Forrest runs hot and cold like a water faucet. The knife fight though isn't what bothers me. That was Gould who attacked him. It was that he blamed Gould for the loss of the two cannons, when Gould apparently could not have prevent it. That fits the description I was looking for, losing a good loyal officer because you're pissed-off at fate. Bad trait.
I'd still hate to put him in the same league as Bragg though, because as the story says, he regretted what happened in the end.
Maybe Bragg should get a new "ability" instead of Quickly Angered. He could have "Pisses Everybody Off All of the Time, and is Ugly to Boot"
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Quickly Angered and hot head are much different traits. A hot temper is often a tool of command.
At the bottom of your story you also find that his anger also left him quickly. This is also the only place I have seen that said he had a hot temper, albeit one that seemed usually short lived and not brooding or vengeful.
Transfer was not even a reprimand though it would damage pride. And going for the gun wouldn’t leave much choice in the matter, would it?
As to anger driving him to the Klan, you should know the whole story. Forrest may have joined as its leader but he also disband it.
http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=039
He was tried for Ft. Pillow. He was also acquitted, mostly on the word of survivors. Sherman had no love for the man but he thought it was all propaganda.
As a note to the research, I checked to see where they go the idea from. You are welcome to go and read the thread for your self. It was speculation!
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests