Napoleon I.

This is coolbert:

"I have fought sixty battles and I have learned nothing which I did not know at the beginning. Look at Caesar; he fought the first like the last."

"Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, Eugene and Frederic. ... This is the only way to become a great general and master the secrets of the art of war. ..."

Napoleon - - the youth!

There is an enigmatic side to Napoleon? Others have commented on this? I am not sure.

"How do you think he does it? I don't know! What makes him so good?"

Well, this is a valid question, isn't it?

Napoleon by far is the most successful and again, arguably the greatest general in history?

Modern warfare as it is understood today owes a lot to Napoleon and can be said to have begun [modern warfare] with the man?

It is safe to say that there was warfare PRIOR to Napoleon and warfare AFTER Napoleon, and they are two different animals.

It has been suggested that the mere command presence of Napoleon on the battlefield was equal to having an additional forty thousand [40,000] troops present!!

And how exactly did this all come about? That is the question I pose.

Prior to his first campaign, his first command as a general officer in charge of troops in the field during a battle, the man was - - TWENTY-SIX YEARS OLD!

And had only very scanty combat experience prior to that. Routing with artillery fire the mob of Paris, an unarmed mob, and only that, a MOB! Also suppressing a rebellion by French sailors, sinking a number of French warships, those ship MOORED AT ANCHORAGE!

[in both case, Napoleon made liberal use of his favorite weapon, the cannon, Napoleon by profession being an artillery officer!]

True, Napoleon was a career military officer and a graduate of the prestigious École Militaire. Completing a two year course in just a year, matriculating at the tender age of sixteen!!

The estimated IQ of Napoleon relative to others of his era being:

========
1. John Stuart Mill (Philosopher, economist) 190
2. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (German poet) 185
3. Thomas Chatterton 170
4. Voltaire (Author, philosopher) 170
5. George Sand (the only woman on the list; author) 150
6. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Composer) 150
7. Lord Byron (English poet) 150
8. Thomas Jefferson (President, statesman, author) 145
9. Benjamin Franklin (Writer, statesman, inventor) 145
10. Charles Dickens (English writer) 145
11. Galileo (Astronomer) 145
12. Napoleon Bonaparte (Military strategist, conqueror) 140
13. Richard Wagner (Composer) 135
14. Charles Darwin (Scientist: theory of Evolution) 135
15. Ludwig von Beethoven (Composer) 135

[an IQ of 150 or greater in modern terms qualifies a person as a genius! Napoleon as an artillery officer must have had too a sound background in math, indicative of a pretty good intellect?]

By his own admission, Napoleon was a finished and polished product at the beginning? Did not need any "learning curve" to follow? He was at the height of his powers from the start, perceived himself to be so - - the master above and beyond those adversaries he met in the field, a confidence in his own abilities that is astonishing!

Consider the command record of Napoleon as a general compared to four of those other "Great Captains" Bonaparte himself felt worthy of emulation:

"Napoleon Bonaparte commanded in more battles than any other general in history. By one count he exercised command in fifty-five major or significant battles . . . Of those battles he won forty-eight, drew three, and lost four."

In contrast:

Gustavus - - Eight major battles, six victories, two losses.
Turenne - - Ten major battles, seven victories, three losses.
Eugene - - Eleven major battles, eight victories, three losses.
Frederick - - Thirteen major battles, nine victories, three losses, one stalemate.

The above four "Great Captains" COMBINED do not even equal ONE Napoleon. What does that say?

So what does make him [Napoleon] so good? More to follow.

coolbert.