Napoleon was ultimately defeated therefore he was NOT the best general ever.
My vote would go to General George Patton.
Seems to me many generals throughout history had long careers without more consistent records of success.
"Best General Ever? Huh! My frozen butt, he is."
I wonder if the troops he left to die on the tundra-like plains of Russia in 1812, while he slinked away to Paris with his tail between his legs, would agree with that assessment.
https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters
Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon's army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales. Exquisitely printed in two colors on fine archival paper, 22 by 15.
If I was a general, and I lost this many men in a single campaign, I would go down as a monster, or a criminal.
Napoleon had some great victories, but he also had some epic defeats.
Heinz Wilhelm Guderian was the best of the bests.
What about Alexander.
After watching Gettysburg and doing some research, I lost all respect for Lee.
George Washington won a war that nearly everyone thought was impossible.
He defeated the greatest power in the world and saw off internal treachery using only his own courage and stragetic nous
I wonder how Napoleon's air force fared in the analysis...
Interesting exercise. One would have to wade through the details to see if this approach makes sense. My first take is that it reminds me of the bean counters in the corporate world trying to measure everything and employees gaming the system by upping their stats with meaningless “wins”. But that’s just my skeptical side.
Not all battles are equal and hopefully this approach takes all that into account.
Since when does a general lead 650,000 into Russia and come home with 65,000 and get labeled anything other than a piss poor total failure as a leader?
Idiot author writes about an idiot general.
A bit off topic, but in many ways Napoleon reminds me of Hitler. Both brought great suffering and death to Europe. So yeah, I never quite understood the romantic fascination some folks have with Napoleon.
Just getting the French to march forward may have made Napoleon one of the greats. I didn't see whether the author accounted for the number if battles fought.
There are too many considerations and too many different weightings of those considerations to accept one metric.
The general who is so intimidating that he never has to fight is a great general. The general who is so well prepared that the victory seems easy, rather than impressive, is also a great general. The same for the general who is able to escape with a big part of his force intact despite overwhelming odds, the general who is a logistical genius and delivers what his lesser generals need for the fight, the tactical genius, the master of politics who ensures that politicians provide what he needs . . .
Very interesting read, thank you.
My first inclination was to ask about Alexander the Great, but I did read the analysis to find out. ;)
Where’s Yi Soon Shin?
I think that Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, and a few other fellows from history might have a bone to pick with this silly poll.
Alexander took on odds greater than those Hitler took on when he invaded Russia, and conquered the gigantic Persian Empire in a very short time. He extended his conquests all the way to India (and only stopped because his own megalomania and genius far exceeded his troops’ appetite for more glory). He never lost a battle, and died (all too early) in his own bed, having conquered most “of the known world”.
Like arguing about baseball players or football running backs, the only question that there really is any doubt about is:
“Who was the SECOND BEST general in history?”
So it’s a ranking more of supreme commanders and corps commanders than generals operating on the lines.
You have to throw Matthew Ridgway and Curtis LeMay into the discussion for operational effectiveness.