Bernard Law Montgomery (1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein) was a prominent British military leader in World War II and its aftermath. He became famous for his successful campaigns against the Axis forces in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia and was later deputy commander of NATO. He wrote several books, including his Memoirs (1958) and The Path to Leadership (1961).
In this chapter, the evidence that Field Marshal Montgomery had Asperger Syndrome or Asperger’s disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) is examined.
Life History
Bernard Montgomery was born on November 17, 1887, the fourth child and third son in the family. His great-uncle, Samuel Montgomery (known as Uncle Montgomery), was obsessed with religion and frittered away the family legacy. He was eccentric, lived with his two unmarried sisters, and was ignorant of the ways of the world. Samuel had a diminutive carriage built so that he would not have to give a lift to the local poor. He suffered from depression and was shy.
Robert Montgomery (Bernard’s paternal grandfather), a brave soldier and a brother of Samuel Montgomery, never received due recognition for what he did, because he was not a man to push his own claims, according to Hamilton (1981). He disarmed the Sepoy Regiment when the Indian mutiny broke out and was clearly a brilliant decision maker under stress.
Montgomery’s maternal grandfather, the clergyman and theological writer Frederic Farrar, was reserved and shy. He was ill at ease in company, could not make small talk, and appeared unapproachable. He tended to write for most of the day and also to spend much of the night writing or correcting proofs.
Bernard Montgomery’s mother had an indomitable will and a passion for order, method, and routine (Hamilton, 1981). Very critical of her son, she was basically affectionless toward Bernard. His father, Henry, was a bishop and was completely dominated by the mother. Montgomery tended to idealize his father.
Bernard Montgomery was a wayward and immature child. He was regarded as the black sheep of the family — a troublemaker and sometimes a renegade. He was also described as charmless, mischievous, and individualist (Moorehead, 1946). The rigidity of his personality was shown when he decided to join the army: He had a tremendous argument with his mother but achieved his aim.
In school he often dreamed his way through the day. He considered work a nuisance, and his conduct in class was abysmal or sometimes strange. He had no notion of style in writing essays and was regarded as backward in mathematics, while in Latin, French, science and art he was marked no higher than “fair.” He was regarded as being slow to grasp principles, self-sufficient, intolerant of authority, and steeled to take punishment, but industrious in things that interested him (Hamilton, 1981). Control was extraordinarily important to him, and on the playing fields in school he could plan his own battles. His behavior on the rugby pitch was downright violent.
In personality he was described as extremely egocentric and eccentric (Montgomery, 1987). He had an awkward, single-minded, and prickly character (Horne, 1994), and was described as a tragedy of personality and failed communications (Taylor, 1965). In the army, he was neither willing nor able to cooperate with his fellow chiefs of staff.
Social Behavior
As Horne (1994) pointed out, Montgomery always had problems in peer relations — in fact, he was unable to deal with his peers. He had a lifelong inability to open up to contemporaries and isolated himself from other senior officers. His lack of empathy was seen when he said that very few of his contemporaries at Staff College were any good. Horne pointed to his self-contained, solitary, awkward, unclubbable, and intractable disposition vis-a-vis his colleagues and his susceptibility to abrasive arrogance and intolerance. He was so isolated in his headquarters (he did not read papers sent to him) that he could not understand the criticism and jealousy that his behavior was causing among the British and U.S. Army chiefs. He described U.S. errors in the Ardennes battle with a ruthless clarity that was grossly insensitive and totally counterproductive. In addition, he was supercilious in his treatment of the U.S. military (Horne, 1994).
Generally, he was extremely poor at communicating with his superiors, such as General Eisenhower, whom he would lecture as if he were patronizing a student at Staff College (Horne, 1994). Indeed, he tended not to communicate with Eisenhower, and this caused major problems because the Americans could not understand why he was not advancing in the war more quickly, particularly at Caen — they could not understand because he did not explain it to them. He was regarded as scandalously peremptory and contemptuous and was christened Chief Big Wind by the U.S. military establishment in Europe; indeed, Field Marshal Brooke described his relations with U.S. soldiers as a disaster (Horne, 1994).
According to Winston Churchill, Montgomery made it a rule not to accept hospitality from any of his subordinate commanders. His essential lack of sensitivity was felt not only by men but also by women, and he was described as a misogynist. He claimed that one could not marry and be an efficient officer. Kay Summersby, Eisenhower's driver, described him as a supercilious, woman-hating little martinet (Horne, 1994).
Narrow Interests/Obsessiveness
Soldiering was Montgomery’s only interest. In comparison to another senior officer in the British Army, Alan Brooke, he was less practical and much narrower in his skills and interests (Brett-James, 1984).
He wanted to master his profession, and was full of energy. Accordin to Hamilton (1981), it was Montgomery’s keenness that stood out most. He had an enormous capacity for work and an imperturbable efficiency; he threw himself into his soldiering with a dedication that seemed to border on madness. Not surprisingly, he suggested a narrow strategy for ending World War II rather than a broad strategy (i.e., attacking over a broad front, which Eisenhower put forward and carried through successfully). Controversy remains as to how successful his narrow-front strategy would have been.
Routines/Control
Montgomery exerted control over both himself and others. What people especially noticed about him was his self-will: His iron determination singled him out from seemingly more talented, more educated and more appropriate leaders, according to Horne (1994). He went to bed rigidly at 9:30 p.m. and was extremely routinebound. He was described as a man of completely regular habits and could be obstinate to the point of bigotry — he would never admit that he had altered a battle plan (Brett-James, 1984). As a result of his inflexible personality, he was not good at seizing opportunities (Horne, 1994).
Montgomery imposed tyrannical discipline on others. He was only interested in his soldiers as efficient fighting machines and looked after their health and morale for this reason only. He totally controlled the younger officers: They did not argue with him, and they were totally obedient, like all his staff had to be (Hamilton, 1981). Any sensitivity shown to junior officers was solely on the basis of his total control and their obedience (Horne, 1994).
Montgomery could be vindictive and cruel. As he grew up, he bullied other children and was beaten himself. Even during World War I, his mother appears to have regarded him as an all-too-bossy child. In midlife he had a brief marriage to a 17-year-old named Betty Anderson; once again, he controlled everything and took over her life (Horne, 1994).
Despite his egocentricity, soldiers liked to have somebody who knew what he was doing (i.e., to have a leader in full charge; Horne, 1994). Mostly, Montgomery was an obsessively cautious commander, but on rare occasions he was capable of extreme recklessness in actions and relationships (e.g., at Arnhem and in his relationship with Eisenhower).
Language/Humor
We have no information on speech and language problems.
Lack of Empathy
Throughout his life Montgomery showed a gross lack of a capacity to empathize or understand what others might be feeling. Indeed, on one occasion he was reduced in military rank because he set fire to another cadet in military college. He had no political sense, and could not see the implications of what he was doing and how others might view his actions.
Although essentially a shy man, Montgomery showed his lack of empathy through boastfulness, vanity, and cutting out his family. He lorded it over his friends and finally became a despot (Hamilton, 1981). It appears that de Guingand, his chief of staff, was essentially a loyal subordinate but had a much wider range of human qualities than Montgomery and much greater capacity for empathy, as well as an instinctive gift for friendship and good humor that Montgomery did not have.
Montgomery's lack of sensitivity and empathy was also seen in his treatment of his son David, whom he would not allow to visit his grandmother or any other members of the family during the war. Indeed, David saw very little of his father for a period of 10 years (Horne, 1994).
Naivety/Childishness
In frontline warfare, Montgomery could concentrate on immediate tasks without worrying over other things, and was able to see things with the simple clarity of a child. This was advantageous in the fog of war (Hamilton, 1994).
Nonverbal Communication
His brother Brian Montgomery (1987) stated that a girl who was dancing with him found him stiff and unamusing. Horne (1994) noted that the atmosphere around him was one of extraordinary quietness and calm.
He showed a lack of fear during battle that can only be described as abnormal, with no trace of apprehension for his future safety. He was decorated for bravery.
Motor Clumsiness
We have no information on motor clumsiness.
Conclusion
Montgomery demonstrates a qualitative impairment in social interaction and restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities. He meets the criteria for Asperger’s disorder according to the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and meets the criteria for Asperger Syndrome (Gillberg, 1996) with the exception of motor clumsiness and speech and language problems.
The issue of high-functioning autism (or autistic disorder as classified in DSM-IV) also has to be considered. He meets the criteria for qualitative impairment in social interaction, as just noted. For the second criterion — qualitative impairments in communication — it is more difficult to draw a final conclusion. One can say that there is no evidence of a capacity for symbolic play in childhood, and, indeed, he was very poor at writing essays in school. He certainly had an impairment in the ability to sustain communication; as Horne (1994) pointed out, Montgomery was a lonely man. He did meet the third criterion of restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities. Nevertheless, Asperger Syndrome is the most likely diagnosis.
Although he had serious impairment in the capacity for empathy, it is also possible that he had problems with central coherence (Frith, 1989); that is, he was always good at taking into account his immediate battlefield in both wars, but was poor at understanding the bigger picture. The serious mistakes that he made as a result prolonged World War II (e.g., not capturing the port of Antwerp and not pursuing Rommel after the battle of Alamein). His inability to communicate with his superiors, and with Eisenhower, in particular, made him extremely unpopular in the United States and almost led to him being fired from his job.
It is difficult to know whether there was a family history of Asperger Syndrome, but there was evidence of relevant traits on both the maternal and the paternal side.
No comments:
Post a Comment