Is Napoleon the best leader in the history?

Is Napoleon the best leader in the history?

He lost in the end. Alexander was much better.

This

Alexander was poisoned by his own men who wanted to go home.

Couldn't even rule his woman

Nope
Wellington was

>i am completely retarded

Alexander had already been done with his campaigns for a long time when he died, and anybody who wanted to go back to Macedon went back "laden with gifts so that you will be the envy of all who see you."

He wanted to conquer India as well though, didn't he?

Alexander died before he had a chance to fail

He did. His troops didn't though and they got together and voted to halt the advance at Hyphasis. Alexander pouted for a while but he didn't have the authority to force them to keep going, and likely understood that had he tried their effectiveness would have been much reduced. Alexander wasn't an absolute monarch.

When he was at his capital he was raising new armies using mostly Persian recruits to go back to India, but several of his satraps were already acting disobedient and he never got a chance to leave on another major campaign.

I wouldn't rule out that he had been poisoned, as who can really say, but nobody would have had to poison him to go home.

Heh
Zama soon...kidd

Short answer: yes
Long answer: yeserey sir

the truth was, we did kill him. I never believed in his dream. None of us did. That's the truth of his life. The dreamers exhaust us. They must die before they kill us with their blasted dreams."

A great leader does not need war to bring glory to his country.

Best military leader? He's probably up there for sure.

>had no formal naval training
>outnumbered and outgunned in every battle but always won
>climbed up military ranks lightning speed
>a political rival has him jailed and tortured and stripped of rank by lying and calling him a spy
>afterwards rival gets btfo in every battle by japs
>implying yi was helpless
>still wanted to fight for his country even though betrayed
>manufactures and sells salt to the chineses himself so that he can make turtle ships
>hideyoshi finally unites japan and launches invasion campaign on korea
>korean forces untrained and outnumbered against ruthless war hardened samurai and japanese musketmen
>still wins every battle with minimal losses of ships
>hideyoshi gives up
>yi's face when

...

Just curious, how would you rate Alexander for its historical representation?

>gets utterly fucking destroyed by Kutuzov despite possessing numerical superiority and qualitative superiority
>best leader

Pick one.

Kutuzov never beat Napoleon

And what about him?

You could say Borodino was a stalemate, and he did beat him in strategic sense.
Contrary to memes, it wasn't just winter, it was Russians raping his supply lines.

No. He was a reasonably good commander and excellent at motivating the populace by cultivating his cult of personality, but he let himself become engrossed in his victories and became unwilling to settle for a compromise that would have let his empire continue. His military skill was unable to remain decisive as his enemies adapted to his leadership, and even with the writing on the wall in 1812 that France had lost, he insisted on fighting to the end, leading France to ruin.

In many ways he was a victim of his own success and was unable to effectively handle anything short of a total victory that would never come.