Thursday, March 6, 2008
Monty
I really find it amusing how mostly everyone thinks that Montgomery is a great general. I think that he way overrated. If he would have held a high leadership position at the beginning of the war, I think that he would have committed the same mistakes if not more than those generals who capitulated to Germany on the war's onset. He is overly cautious, lacks military genius, conservative, and is not the aggressive type who is usually caste as the war hero. He is just a product of success due to Germany's lack of supply, manpower, and discipline during the latter stages of the war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that he did get lucky when he did come to power when he did, but I think that the way he fought in war was brilliant. He sat back and stock piled supplies before attacking, letting the Germans advance without supplies. So in that way it was genius. Also by waiting he lost less lives than his enemy. So, to say that he isn't brilliant may be half true.
I like his cautious nature. He saved lives, and his plans worked. He did not go in half cocked and recklessly through away people lives. The fact that he had soldiers respect says a lot for the man. However, his decision in Scilicy was out of character for him and had disasterous results.
You don't always have to be brash and agressive to be a successful leader. Each type has its own merits and his being cautious helped him and his troops. Of course in the end he was too caution, but there have been several commanders who have been too eager and were led to the same demise
I think it's quite admirable to do what is best for the troops and not what will win the battle quickest. I'd much rather be under someone's command with these same views than someone who doesn't care about loss of life and would rather just go in guns blazing.
Post a Comment