Well he lost in Russian campaign. But after that there was still all of central Europe between him and Russian army. He then lost more in eastern German refusin

Well he lost in Russian campaign. But after that there was still all of central Europe between him and Russian army. He then lost more in eastern German refusing to negotiate. Then Austria joined the war and he continued losing in Germany. Then he left Germany to France and lost in France again. > Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo. Even had he won at Waterloo, there was 0% change it would not have ended the same way. > That makes two serious defeats. Actually far more then two. > Wellington was a worthy opponent so. Wellington is overrated, the reason Waterloo is so hyped its because its the only victory of the British on land and they did that with Prussian support. The Russian defeated Napoleon more then anybody else, and likely the Austrians after that. > So yes, it was a viable campaign. I'm not gone say it was not viable. But in terms of risk reward it was still bad strategy. He had many political options other then full on invading Russia. > He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. They actually made amazing offers to him the he refused. > Just like everyone else. I would agree. I don't think he was uniquely bad. I'm just saying that I don't really think he ranks among the very best general/statesmen.