Napolean's skill lay in his artillery. He had controled a great amount of land, won a great many battles with small armies, became emperor of France and finally gave France some glory. If he died there and France slowly Deteriorated like Britain, Napolean would be in line with Alewander the Great. But he got Greedy, attacked Russia like a fool and allowed in inferiour Generals face Wellington. Napolean got banished to his island, put France back instead of forming a great nation, tried to make a comeback and failed, and died as a once great leader.

awesome leader

Typical short-guy syndrome at work here that we see in our present administration- but one cannot deny Napoleon's skill as a military leader. . .but in typical Western fashion he is a wee bit overblown- this was the 'genius' that took his troops into Russia and was crushed by a winter that you never, ever ignore if you know anything about Russia. . .can't see smarter military figures making that kind of drastic logistical mistake. . .still, can't be lower than a solid four. . .

he simply fritted away armies to achieve his own selfish goals. he was promoted to fast had no idea about logistics and his battle field tatics were flawed as shown by wellington at waterloo

Napoleon was by far the greatest military leader of all time.those who claim that france was always weak are wrong.I mean france has ruled europe twice!!!( charlamagne and napoleon.What has america ever had to do with colonies.......it's been one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)also napoleon is about the only leader who managed to beat the british fleet at the battle of Toulon.All those who say that napoleon does not deserve the ranking of greatest military leader to walk the earth is just jealous that they never had such a great leader.The only reason he lost waterloo is because he was out numberedby the british let alone the prussians.He was still about to beat the british but the prussians just managed to save their(unable and inept on land Whogot n empire by beating up beating up people who were armed with spears using gun and canon.)allies

Right up there with Alexander the Great. Military leaders still use some of his tactics today. Technically speaking, Napoleon wasn't French, he was Corsican; he later moved to France where he spoke French with a heavy Italian accent. His position as general brought France to a short-lived glory before they went back to Surrenderville.

Pour genius!!!! He tried extremely hard to make his country the best in Europe, often to the expense of others, but which leader doesnt do that. Wherever he went he lifted his troops, very respected among his troops. And he didnt come to the leadership of France through royal blood, another aspect i look for when i jugde a good leader.

Brilliant, only faltering at the end when his health started to betray him. And because I can't resist. Reviewer Maersk: you rate this guy highly, but you claim to judge Hannibal on results (he lost) and Alexander on longevity of conquests. You give them both one star. Let me point out that Napoleon lost. Let me also point out that his conquests didn't even survive his death. Try actually learning a little military history before exposing us to your phenomenal ignorance.

probably the best general ever to live. brought france to an ascendency it may never see again...........

Definitely among the most brilliant generals of all times, and founder of the French Empire. His only failing was that he bit off more than he could chew...Russia. That pretty much brought him to a freezing halt.

Regardless what many say about Napoleon most of them have relatively very little knowledge on the topic it would seem if they had given a low rating. I have read about 7 or 8 biographies on the great man and studied many books that display battle maps of the Napoleonic wars. Just by looking at these maps alone and watching his troop positioning and movements one would see he was nothing short of a millitary genius. Now many comment on the disaster in Russia but the invasion there was as needed as any other invasion of the wars. After implamenting the Continental system on Europe it was important that it was followed and for a while most did (obviously some trade with England occured from these other countries but it was usually done secretly). Russia was the first to openly oppose Napoleon therefor he felt they needed to be made an example of therefor he went in despite the advice given to him by advisors. Also he had no reason apparant to him why he shouldnt go in first off it was not yet winter and they did not expect and early winter and second he had the largest army assembled that any one could recall in living memory (and even for a long time before living memory). Second off it was not just the country of Russia he wanted war with at this point in time it was the czar Alexander who Napoleon by this time had taken a disliking to for 2 main reasons. First is after Friedland Alexander signed the Treaty of Tilsit and Napoleon rather then giving harsh terms like he did to the Austrians after Marengo (the treaty of Luneville also known as the terrible peace) gave Alexander reasonable terms mainly that Russia would become allied with France. Second and most important reasons for these tensions between Bonaparte and Alexander was that Alexander betrayed Napoleon by not aiding him in the Wagram campaign after saying Russia would be an ally of France at Tilsit and then going behind his back with tallyrand and deciding not to help in the second danube campaign (wagram), this betrayl by ALexander and Tallyrand occured at Erfurt. The next major thing to understand is after victory at Bordino there would have been not a huge problem once winter rolled around because the army would be encamped in Moscow which had been evacuated therefor would easily be able to facilitate over 500,000 soldiers. However the Russians burned there own city an unexpected event that could not have been expected nor can Napoleon be held accountable for this turn of events. If any thing that can be blamed on Napoleon that happened in Russia it would be waiting to long after the Russians set Moscow ablaze, but this is understandable because he figured rather then lpulling out and making it seem as a loss he could get peace terms from Alexander to make it seem like a victory to the people of of France. These peace terms never came and because of Napoleons waiting 2 extra weeks at the charred capital of Russia while retreating his army felt the worst part of the winter which inflicted the tremendous casualties. Because of this the disaster in Russia can not be fully attributed to Napoleon but rather just many unfortunate turn of events. And Waterloo is not worth even discussing because most people who know some thing about it know that Ney controlled most the battle and that it was Ney's fault that there even was a Waterloo because if he did what he was told by Napoleon Sir Aurthur Wellesly (The Duke of Wellington) would have been defeated at Quatre Bras and there would have never been a waterloo. If one wants to look to a battle to critize Napoleon for it would be Leipzig and not pulling troops out of Dresden to aid his soldiers at Leipzig but this perhaps may have not done much either looking at the allies dominant number. But even Leipzig wasnt completely his fault many commanders mismanaged it not to mention a corporal blowing the only bridge across the river to early thus stranding 1/3 the army on the other side. Despite these defeats in the later years of his life it does not take away from the genius of his early campaigns and his numerous victories. Also one must take notice that Napoleons troops admired him perhaps more than any other troops in history admired a leader if one takes this into consideration one would realize that if if a army of a million loved and admired one person so much he must truly be great. Napoleon was the greatest millitary leader the Greatest politician of his or perhaps any time a true genius and despite the fact the people may feel he was evil, a decent dare I say good man. Vive l' Empereur

Napoleon Bonaparte should deserve 5 star, one of the greatest military leader. At the age of 16, and he joined the artillery as a second lieutenant. Now at age of 24 he promoted to general. He won alot of great battle and forced Austria and its allies to make peace. He make the France the strongest country in the Europe at that time. I know he became dictator because Consul for life is not enough for him and he became emperor. He want his son to inherit to his huge empire. I know he became emperor is a big mistake.. but come on.. who would want be consul for life? and then leave your empire to other people taht not was not your heir. Also he launched an invasion of Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. That was a BIG MISTAKE!! Here is something good about Napoleon. His Code Napoléon was established as law, and Feudalism and serfdom were abolished, and freedom of religion established. Free public schools and higher education was opened to all who qualified, regardless of class or religion. He was not really a bad dictator..he cultivate the country and improve the life in France... plz spend some hour and go read more about Napoleon Bonaparte.

those people who rate him a low score should understand that the world will forget you a trillion times faster than it will forget Napoleon Buonaparte.

i cannot conceive how napoleon could be rated behind anyone other than possibly alexander. I mean he is currently rated 17. How could a person who basically conquered the whole continent of europe, crowned himself emperor, wins so much battles that its not even funny, basically is god's substitute for 20 years, controlls everbody's destiny for almost 2 decades be rated at an appalling 17 out of 38? Napoleon is a person that is greater than any living being in this whole world's history, the only person he should be rated behind is possibly GOD himself. What will history say? What will posterity think? -Napoleon Buonaparte

The greatest military leader of all time.

...until he tried to invade russia....

A small man with a giant ego. A good military leader, but what the hell was he thinking attempting to go into Russia? Reminds me a bit of Hitler when I think about it. Leader whose ego was so big that he thought he could take over the world, yet was in for a rude awakening.

As a leader there was none better. There was no general in history who was loved more by his men than Napolean. If your going by great leaders of history he should be within the top 5. This man knew how to get what he wanted and he knew how to win. The men in his army loved him so much that when he returned from exile, they came crawling back. The ones who were hurt and couldn't even fight. Some could barely walk and some were well into old age. But all of these men came back wanting to fight for Napolean Bonaparte.

The "Little Corporal" was a tactical genius...Austerlitz should be enough proof of that. Not to mention his Egyptian campaign. He grossly underestimated Russia's love for the Motherland. Wellington was a dufus, he really lucked out at Waterloo.

While I might sympathize with Talleyrand's assessment ("He was neither a great man, nor a bad man. He was a great, bad man."), I feel that Napoleon's military excellence is beyond question, particularly in the Northern Italian campaign of 1796 and the campaign in eastern France in 1814. In each case, he employed mobility, surprise, and interior lines to best seasoned generals many times the size of his own forces and considerably better provisioned. When the Durant's titled their history of Europe from the Thermidorean reaction to Waterloo "The Age of Napoleon", they were doing no more than recognizing that Napoleon was the Man on Horseback, the most significant figure of his era, and the signal genius of the nineteenth-century (By genius I refer only to the fact that he rose from humble Corsican beginnings to become master of Europe, by virtue of nothing more than his own talent, intelligence, drive, and determination.) That he erred many times along the way, such as the execrable murder of the Duc d'Enghien, I neither deny or defend. But remember that to the revolutionary generation of 1848, Napoleon was no tyrant, but a Byronic hero, a champion of freedom and liberty. To draw comparisons between Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler is not merely to deny the facts of history; it is an obscenity. Napoleon's personal courage, administrative skill, and military genius is well-nigh incontrovertible.

Napoleon was and evil bastard and we are all very lucky indeed Sir Aurthur Wellesley put an end to him.

One of the few Frenchmen to really amount to anything.

Napolean is one of the greatest war leaders of all time. He conquered so much of the earth...even Russia and he was from FRANCE! He deserves lots of credit.

I don't care how smart he was supposed to have been, what a great general he was, or what because,in the end, he was just another tiny guy with an inflated ego. People who try to take over the world are morons who mostly suceed in getting a lot of people killed and end by leaving a brown smear on their portion of history. PU!!

Brilliant man. Hes a four becasue of Russia and his incredible amount of lost troops. He could have succeeded despite these flaws if he had attacked earlier at Waterloo. Napoleon developed the concept of the column to drive through the enemy. He also was a heavy user of artillery.

Napoleon is probably the first name to jump into most people's minds when they think of great military leaders. To be honest, though, I don't know that much about Napoleon's specific military accomplishments, strategies, etc., other than the basics like Waterloo and his problems with the Russian winter. I've been trying to find a one-volume biography to read but haven't seen anything that looks really good. Any suggestions?