Yup. Monty was a kindred spirit for sure for people like George Patton and Douglas McArthur.

Except Nimitz. Or Spruance. Or Eisenhower.

Or Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and George Washington.


I do agree with the overall assessment from Nixer though that it's usually "Alpha Male" type personalities who often rise to become admirals and generals.

There are many examples of well-known generals not fitting this description, and plenty that do. With Monty it was extreme though, like Mark Clark.

I can't recall the quote exactly, but it was once said that Clark was the 'man of destiny he always imagined himself to be'. It's clear when you read about this history that some generals were very aware of their place in history. Or at least very keen on cultivating it. It's why Clark was mockingly referred to as Marcus Aurelius Clarkus.

For every Patton or MacArthur there's a Bradley or a Marshall
For Zhukov a Rokkosovsky
For Rommel a Manstein

Now, 75 years later, it's clear that history did indeed pick these men out as the best. But we also know that it's due, at least in part, to these men ensuring that it did. Like Clark's fanatical insistence that every communique was 'Fifth Army', making scant mention of any allies involved. Everything was a Fifth Army show. He wanted the credit, and often when it wasn't due. Zhukov did the same, going to extreme lengths to reduce the influence of any general under him, so that the credit was his.

As for Monty, I am not his biggest fan, but he did have his strengths. I think he was born one war too late though.

From Wiki,

"Clark has been heavily criticized for ignoring the orders of his superior officer, British General Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander, and allowing the German 10th Army to slip away, in his drive to take Rome, the capital of Italy, a strategically unimportant city. The German 10th Army then joined with the rest of the German army group at the Trasimene Line.[3]"


For me this was the most egregious example of Clark's massive ego.

Yes, MacArthur was the same way. Everything had to be "MacArthur's forces did this..., MacArthur's did that." An unlikeable horses ass, like Patton. They were unstable characters, but they got the job done, I guess. I have more respect for men like General Marshall. A true intellect who had a massive effect on the history of Europe.

Good call Pooch, and I edited my post, adding Marshall as a perfect counterweight. I should have thought of that when I posted.

PM, yes Clark made, in my view, many blunders. And if you look closely enough, you can often detect his vainglory at it's root. I would like to have seen his face when he learned the day after Rome fell that the allies had invaded Normandy. His crowning achievement, and it lasted for one day. I bet he was absolutely livid

No kidding! Talk about having your thunder stolen from you big time!

Right, and it would be bad enough for any general, but particularly, excruciatingly bad for someone like Clark who so intensely craved the spotlight.

Rome, despite it's prestige, wasn't tactically or strategically important, and when you consider how Clark shouldered aside his allies and their credit to reach it, it seem that kharma is indeed a b!tch. I can imagine him cursing Eisenhower for invading when he did.

You cannot fully blame Clark for allowing the German 10th Army n to slip away.

The blame must first be placed on John P. Lucas for sitting on the beach at Anzio for 9 days doing nothing while giving time for the Germans to bring in reinforcements and to strengthen their lines.

Lucas had the opportunity to cut off the 10th Army supply lines after the landings which will have led to open road to Rome but he didn't use it.

But Clark did tell Lucas to not stick his head out during the landings at Anzio.