Today is the anniversary of the birth in 1887 of Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.
Over the years I’ve read and heard plenty of good and bad things about Monty – many of which sound earily similar to comments about George “Little Mac” McClellan – how he was an excellent organizer and booster of troop morale, but how he was also cautious and pokey in his movements, and how he was a poor strategist. Certainly “Market Garden” was a flop, but on the other hand Monty soundly thrashed Rommel in the desert. So who knows?
On the whole, I’m disposed to like Monty despite his faults, although I also believe his reputation is probably more inflated than actually warranted. If any of you military history buffs out there can suggest a good biography that weighs the pro and con arguments well, I’d appreciate it.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 17, 2008 at 7:48 pm
The Abbot
The general line of defense I’ve heard of Montgomery’s tactical conservatism is that unlike his enemies and his rivals among the allies, destruction of Montgomery’s forces would have meant the destruction of his country’s Army. Rommel could gamble because his mission was always a sideshow in Germany’s war effort. Patton could gamble because he was a corps/army commander inside a much larger Army. The British had a handful of regular troops in the Eastern theater, but practically all of their regular forces were concentrated under Montgomery. This forced Montgomery to be careful to a fault.
November 18, 2008 at 2:42 am
ChrisN
I’m hard pressed to think of anything I’ve read that was very favorable toward Monty.
I’m in process of reading Rick Atkinson’s books on the war in Europe (just finished “An Army at Dawn,” starting “The Day of Battle”). He’s certainly not a Monty fan.