• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
I think there were better British Generals out there. Auckenleck and Warvel are two names that spring to mind straight away. However Montey had one thing that those two names lack, the confidence of Churchill. Without support from the political leadership you cannot succeed. Montey excelled as a politcal general, he looked and acted the part and becuase of that the leaders and men trusted him. He also won wich in the end is the all you really want from a general. So Monty might not of been the greatest general of all time, but he was smart enough.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
AlexanderG said:
What an odd way of arguing that Monty was a good general. "Sure he fucked up alot, and sure tens of thousands of men died needlessly and sure he allowed vast numbers of Germans to escape encirclment to extend the war but hey he was still there at the end. That makes him great"

No I think you miss the point. Sucess and failure are defined by doing what you are asked to do, not what else you were asked to do. Monty was charged with winning the war against Germany and well the history books show that little contest was marked down as a home win. So all in all Monty did what he was asked to do and thus succeeded. To say that another General may have done the same thing in less time or with fewer casulties might be true, but that does not make Monty a bad General per say.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
AlexanderG said:
That is a weak definition. Because if we take Monty out and just fit any other British general right in the chances are that he would have done at least just as well and wouldnt have launched Market Garden.

Eh no, becuase the other Generals like the Aucklecks of this world were not trusted by Churchill and Alan-Brooke the way Monty was. Thus would not of got the support for the grinding attrition battles Normandy which Monty did get.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
well I do agree that Monty didn't save our collective butts at the Bulge and do agree that the decision to monty in command of the North side of the Bulge was for more for adminstrative reasons than for anythingelse. At the same time the reaction of the average American Soldier was not "OH Shit Monty's in Charge now we are well and truly screwed." So that does say that Monty could not of been a total idiot.