> I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and

> I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and one hero was destined to win, the other side's defeat inevitable. I agree completely. Napoleon's defeat seems much less inevitable than, say, the Confederacy's or Imperial Japan's in their respective wars. The point is, however, that if one wants to claim Napoleon was great, one needs to make the challenges he faced seem larger, not smaller, and so his strategic "genius" must rest on the proposition that his strategic problem was insurmountable. I am willing to concede that it may have been, but even so, I think Wellington was the more effective battlefield commander (that said, Napoleon was running an army and an empire, and doing a lot of delegation; Wellington not so much).