Napoleon was the Best General Ever, and the Math Proves it.

[Peter1469]

Napoleon was the Best General Ever, and the Math Proves it.

A very cool article.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]When [Scipio] Africanus asked who, in Hannibal’s opinion, was the greatest general, Hannibal named Alexander… as to whom he would rank second, Hannibal selected Pyrrhus… asking whom Hannibal considered third, he named himself without hesitation.[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)] Then Scipio broke into a laugh and said, “What would you say if you had defeated me?”[/COLOR]

This was from Livy.

The author of our article goes on from there:

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Like [/COLOR]Hannibal[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)], I wanted to rank powerful leaders in the history of warfare. Unlike Hannibal, I sought to use data to determine a general’s abilities, rather than specific accounts of generals’ achievements. The result is a system for ranking every prominent commander in military history.[/COLOR]

Next the author discusses his methodology. Read that if you are interested. He used the acronym WAR to describe his methodology.

The Results

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Among all generals, Napoleon had the highest WAR (16.679) by a large margin. In fact, the next highest performer, [/COLOR]Julius Caesar[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)] (7.445 WAR), had less than half the WAR accumulated by Napoleon across his battles. Napoleon benefited from the large number of battles in which he led forces. Among his 43 listed battles, he won 38 and lost only 5. Napoleon overcame difficult odds in 17 of his victories, and commanded at a disadvantage in all 5 of his losses. No other general came close to Napoleon in total battles. While Napoleon commanded forces in 43 battles, the next most prolific general was [/COLOR]Robert E. Lee[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)], with 27 battles (the average battle count was 1.5). Napoleon’s large battle count allowed him more opportunities to demonstrate his tactical prowess. [/COLOR]Alexander the Great[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)], despite winning all 9 of his battles, accumulated fewer WAR largely because of his shorter and less prolific career.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]However, outside of Napoleon’s outlying success, the generals’ WARs largely adhere to a normal distribution. This suggests his success is attributable to command talent, rather than an anomaly in the model’s findings. In fact, Napoleon’s total WAR was nearly 23 standard deviations above the mean WAR accumulated by generals in the dataset.[/COLOR]

It is a fun analysis, not definitive.

[Mister D]

The contexts are so different it's hard to rank generals/commanders, IMO. Alexander, for example, risked total annihilation each time he met the Persians in the field. Napoleon could lose and lose big (Russia) and live to fight another day so to speak.

[Peter1469]

The contexts are so different it's hard to rank generals/commanders, IMO. Alexander, for example, risked total annihilation each time he met the Persians in the field. Napoleon could lose and lose big (Russia) and live to fight another day so to speak.

The author based his opinion on a specific methodology. So you have to take the results in that light. It was a fun read anyway.

[Mister D]

The author based his opinion on a specific methodology. So you have to take the results in that light. It was a fun read anyway.

Understood. I just think it's a futile exercise regardless of methodology. Certainly we can separate the wheat from the chaff but I don't think we can really determine who was best. To add to my earlier comment, what it took to make a great leader in Alexander's day was different in important ways. Alexander was in the thick of the fight. He led in a way few army commanders in Napoleon's day would (or could considering the sheer scale of Napoleonic warfare) even consider.

[Peter1469]

Excellent points.

And a much better topic that what is being posted here lately.


We don't get the hard left responding to these non-political, i.e. real threads. They are too busy hating.

Understood. I just think it's a futile exercise regardless of methodology. Certainly we can separate the wheat from the chaff but I don't think we can really determine who was best. To add to my earlier comment, what it took to make a great leader in Alexander's day was different in important ways. Alexander was in the thick of the fight. He led in a way few army commanders in Napoleon's day would (or could considering the sheer scale of Napoleonic warfare) even consider.

[Mister D]

I'm deriving some of my thoughts from The Mask of Command by John Keegan. He discusses the style of command between men like Alexander, the Duke of Wellington and Adolf Hitler.

My father my passed away last year but he brought me a stack of books from the Air Force base in NJ where he was working part time. I don't remember the circumstances but Keegan's A History of Warfare was among them. I said cool I'm gonna read that at some point. I finally cracked it open a few months ago and Keegan actually signed it for someone. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Must have been at a book review and chat, I guess.

[Bethere]

Excellent points.

And a much better topic that what is being posted here lately.


We don't get the hard left responding to these non-political, i.e. real threads. They are too busy hating.

We don't feel welcome. We have apt reason to believe that to be true.

I hope you and the equally dismissive mr. D have fun.

[Peter1469]

We don't feel welcome. We have apt reason to believe that to be true.

I hope you and the equally dismissive mr. D have fun.

If you can't discuss the topic, don't talk.

[Croft]

Alexander was incredible. He and his men had to think on their feet in battle whenever they encountered something new. Like in their first great battle in India they faced elephants for the first time and had their formations broken open. They had to fight a melee battle and won by hoisting each other up the sides of the elephants to kill the riders. They won but it was tough.
The next battle they were ready and put out metal ball spikes in front of their formations that stopped the elephants and they won easily.
Alexander also engaged in mountain siege warfare in Afghanistan and fought there for years. He's still remembered there as the only man ever to conquer the place. There were constant revolts and he would go back and put them down until there were no more.
I think he must rank as the greatest general ever.

[Peter1469]

Alexander was incredible. He and his men had to think on their feet in battle whenever they encountered something new. Like in their first great battle in India they faced elephants for the first time and had their formations broken open. They had to fight a melee battle and won by hoisting each other up the sides of the elephants to kill the riders. They won but it was tough.
The next battle they were ready and put out metal ball spikes in front of their formations that stopped the elephants and they won easily.
Alexander also engaged in mountain siege warfare in Afghanistan and fought there for years. He's still remembered there as the only man ever to conquer the place. There were constant revolts and he would go back and put them down until there were no more.
I think he must rank as the greatest general ever.

I am definitely a fan of Alexander. The author didn't rate his as high because of the length of his fighting career and the numbers involved.