Quote:
Originally Posted by smrk2
Atm, I'm at Napoleon vs Khan, begrudgingly giving it to Khan, but I will biasedly look for reasons to prop up/exonerate the former and knock down the latter. I give a huge edge to Napoleon in strength of schedule (quality of opponents), a solid to strong edge in tactical genius, and a small to solid edge in military reforms and innovations; although I need to learn more about Khan's reforms and innovations and how they would compare.
But Napoleon (ultimately) lost, Khan didn't; I'd offer this, nobody was going to be chasing Khan across the steppes if he had blundered somewhere (like they chased Napoleon back to Paris in 1814). Napoleon, whether this is strategically sound or not, thought he had to subdue and and dominate continental Europe to survive; this is more difficult and complex than to ride around and raze villages and siege-up an imperial capital or two.
Napoleon does deserve his traditional reputation as one of history's great military commanders. Through his abilities of maneuver, his reorganization of the French army and his flexible and innovated strategic and tactical handling of armies he was able to dominate the European battle field throughout the early part of his career. It wasn't flawless, I already discussed the problems with his campaign in Egypt.
Problem is only Hannibal is the only person really GOAT worthy other than Napoleon that had so many blunders and defeats. This traditional reputation must be viewed not only in regards to his victories, but also his failings as a military commander. It is in this light that judgments must made on Napoleon's military capabilities.
You posted:
"On Caesar & Russia -- Let me begin by asking this, if Napoleon was struck dead by lightning in late 1811 or early 1812 (not quite in as dominant a position as he was between 1806 and 1809, but still pretty dominant), would we not all immediately put him in the top 3? Napoleon's career from 1795 to 1811 is shockingly amazing. He took on and defeated, over and over again, the best armies of Europe. His tactics and reforms defined warfare for decades after his exile and death."
True but he wasn't "struck dead" and he went on the lead two very serious defeats against no-one really GOAT worthy. It like me saying if Caesar were not stabbed to death and went on to face the Parthian Empire we would really understand his genius as a commander.
Brillant as Napoleon was Khan, Sulla, Caesar, Scipio Africanus, Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon, Hán Xìn, Khalid ibn al-Walid all have consistent brilliance through their careers without the blunders of Napoleon.