|
|
Post by John Marston on Jan 23, 2023 7:20:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Feb 1, 2023 15:22:37 GMT
John Marston , I absolutely agree with the title, never a fight! As to Napoleon, he was a military genius, perhaps he'll fit the top 5. Anyways, seriously, there's a reason why Alexander the Great is addressed as "great", and Napoleon not. Napoleon may have affected the history and laws of France, but Alexander conquered the former largest empire in history and affected the history and laws of the whole world! And, he didn't lose a single battle in spite of the unfavourable odds he had. Tell me one time Napoleon did something nearly as magnificient as the battle of Issus or the siege of Tyre (what this statistics guy didn't even mention) not to even mention all his other victories. As to the WAR rating, you have to admit it's flawed. Caesar really being the second greatest commander ever? Really!? Napoleon fought dozens of battles which is the only reason he's at the top. It's not Alexander's fault that he decimated his enemies so completely that they couldn't fight again. And even the scoring is sketchy. The guy only takes into account mere numbers when comparing generals from totally different eras. (Meant to respond earlier, but been busy)
|
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Feb 6, 2023 4:52:46 GMT
There's so much wrong with this, both in the methodology and in the data. There are a lot of comments on the article pointing out everything wrong with it, but a few obvious problems: 1) Bad data. For example, Suvorov is only credited with four battles, but in fact he commanded many more documented battles (including battles documented on Wikipedia, which really puts the author's work in doubt) and was never defeated. He belongs very much in the front rank of historical generals. 2) Strategy is completely ignored. Battles a general is expected to win count for less, but an ability to fight when you have the advantage and avoid battle when your enemy has the advantage are surely signs of good generalship (Sun Tzu agrees). 3) Related to the second point, the model only considers the immediate outcome of a battle and not the longer-term impact. It doesn't consider a general's ability to conserve his forces. The article cites Borodino as a victory for Napoleon and defeat for Kutuzov, but in reality, both sides took roughly equal losses, which for Kutuzov were replaceable but for Napoleon weren't. This one is a clear case of "won the battle but lost the war", and Napoleon's primary responsibility as supreme commander is the outcome of the war. In the real world, Kutuzov outplayed Napoleon. 4) I have to give credit to the author for making an attempt to account for the changing nature of war, but it doesn't go far enough. He assumes that total numbers make little difference to the outcome of a battle - that's fairly accurate in modern warfare or where there's a significant difference in technology (something the model doesn't and really can't objectively reflect), and I suspect that battles of that kind are disproportionately represented in his database. This is speculation, but I'd bet that before modern destructive weapons and given similar technology, numbers were a much bigger factor. 5) The one point I *wouldn't* nitpick is the model's dependence on longevity. First, because the ability to stay in command for an extended period of time is in some degree a reflection of a general's qualities, and second, because success over time shows an ability to adapt and stay a step ahead of one's enemies. |
|
