Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey Badger
]... In studying military history extensively one of the few absolutes I have learned whether it be Sulla, Caesar, Khan..... I could go on and on..... is an aggressive audacious opponent is the most difficult to deal with. ...
If you are trying to make the point that Montgomery was one of the greatest military leaders of all time you are going to have a hard road ahead. Monty might be one of the great case studies of how to be an average military leader. Not incompetent, but certainly not great.
My Op asked who was the GOAT not the guy who didn't just didn't screw things up badly.
I think you have a far too narrow view of the sort of accomplishments that go into being a great military leader. You are focussed far too much only on the conduct of battle.
The notion that Montgomery was merely average is patently ridiculous. You must believe that the results in North Africa, Sicily and Normandy, all of which Montgomery was responsibile for, were inevitable, on the timeline achieved. Nobody thought so at the time, and I don't know of any major military historian or theorist who has proposed this since.
I certainly don't think Montgomery is the GOAT. In terms of actual accomplishments, there is a case to be made that he should
possibly be graded in the top 100. However,
my point was he should be above Patton. Patton didn't even sit the exam.
On the basis of actual accomplishments, Montgomery ranks a lot higher than Patton. You should remember that Montgomery was directly responsible for creating the circumstances and developing the plans that put Patton in the role of cavalry flank sweeper that he performed so well in Sicily and in Normandy. Patton performed the role designated for him, as laid out in Montgomery's concept.
Patton is "
the guy who just didn't screw up" the opportunity. Montgomery is the guy who created the opportunity. Montgomery is also responsible for the training of many of the formations in 21st Army Group, which had a higher median standard of performance than the formations under Patton's command, though in the latter case, perhaps much of the fault can be laid at the feet of Gen. McNair*.
Was Patton more aggressive that Montgomery? It seem so. However, in war, as in poker, while aggression is necesary, it is selective aggression that is best, not constant, inevitable, instinctive, uncontrolled aggression. Maniacs lose to good TAGs. Where is the evidence that Patton was a TAG, not a maniac?
* Highest ranking US officer to be killed in action in WW II, Commander of US Army Ground Forces - meaning he was responsible for training soldiers. Ironically he was killed in Normandy by friendly fire, while observing the start of Operation Cobra.