Cav Guy said:

"I have wondered if the cruelty and indifference they were accused of inflicting on their soldiers was actually compassion, in the sense that they bore heavier demands and losses so the overall campaign would be shorter and thus less overall casualties for the nation?

I can't argue the results they produced or their tactical acumen, but I have always been disturbed by their leadership methods."
Compassion possibly, I think -- there's also perhaps the better possibility that they were minor sociopaths (my phrase for a mental condition that I believe allows better soldiers than non-sociopathic personalities or full sociopaths. It is not IMO an insult, in fact, it's a compliment) and understood that it's a harsh business and that shorter and harder campaigns actually save more lives (military and civilian plus infrastructure damage) than prolonged efforts which drag out the killing and dying.

Something we all too often forget...

You cannot -- or, morally, should not -- try to wage war on the cheap and couch that as a humanitarian approach to war (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one). Even in minor actions, to try to take an 'easy' approach is almost invariably sure to cause more casualties.

I agree both were somewhat harsh in the leadership arena -- but it's hard to fault their performance in the command arena. Some times the two come into conflict. It's far harder to be a commander than it is to be a leader...

Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.