Yes, I am aware of that, I have been looking for stats showing the number killed in battle but can't find a source.
I visited Gettysburg a few years back and it sent chills up my spine to look out over the battle field and realize the carnage that took place there.
“The English historian, John Terraine alway argued that it is "senseless" that history views Napoleon as a great general and Douglas Haig as a failure. Napoleon's destiny was always defeat and ruin while Haig's was always ultimate victory.”
So the only mark of a skilled general is whether he ultimately wins or loses? Depends were you see the remit of the general as ending. Haig persisted with ineffective tactics for too long. And some were plain moronic (e.g. walk towards the enemy trenches). This is what led to the
deaths of millions with little achieved, not that Haig was the only one guilty of it.
The Germans were the ones who first altered infantry tactics, ultimately to no avail. The British on the other hand invented the tank and had Germany blockaded by the Navy. The latter factors prevailed, neither of which were exactly Haig’s brainchild.
Such vilification of the man is probably unfair because he wasn’t the worst general in the war. But he still persisted with bad tactics on the battlefield. I would say Napoleon’s failings were as leader of France rather than as a general on the battlefield. Thus comparing Haig to Napoleon is a bit of a case of apples to oranges.
Terraine’s logic would see Rommel as a bad general just because he lost, an argument that makes little sense. Certain factors are outside a general’s control.