Is this model accurate ?

No, because the best general ever was Subutai.

>It's another "STEMfags try history" episode.

If you look at his Italian campaign, he repeatedly beats numerically superior Austrian troops with more training in a spate of victories. He invaded with 36,000 and in the series of battles with Austria and the Papal State wiped the floor with 120,000+ opponents. At one point he splits his army and takes on 50,000 Austrians with 20,000 men and wins decisively.

Napoleon also invaded Egypt and Syria and took on 220,000 Ottomans and 30,000 Brits with less than 40,000 men and crushed them until his army caught bubonic plague.

And what happened to Le Empeurere fleet?

>napoleon fought only 43 battles
>ceaser only fought 27
>alexander only fought 9

the fuck kind of revisionist history is this pleb reading

>spain valued exploration
>massive greed to prop up a failing monarchy had nothing to do with it

Whew BSM

but even more speak a Romance language

>Italy
>A united country before 1871 that doesn't have it's territory controlled by Austria and France.

Can only pick one there Neil.

No. Sabermetrics for something as complicated as warfare is asinine. It fails to account for great men that exceeded other great men. Caesar for instance had to contend with Pompey as a rival, Sulla and Marius as predecessors and Agrippa as a follower, some of Rome's greatest generals smooshed into three generations, which skewed the WAR. Alexander had Philip before him and his diodachi after him. Napoleon didn't have such skewing.

Stop linking blogs for history discussion.

Forgot to add it fails to account for great men with great competition since he's factoring in losses for general worth.

No European had the chance to become known as a great general in Napoleon's era because they had to keep fighting Napoleon since everyone allied against France.

The fact that no general emerged who could consistently beat Napoleon only shows his dominance.

Love this image.

Only Wellington emerged for defeating the French Army and Napoleon (which were outnumbered each time)
Need I say more?

>and the math proves it
Whenever this phrase is included into the title of an article, there's a 99% certaintly that whatever follows is bullshit and bad math. Comparing them in the author's manner as if those leaders living in the same historical period is retarded.

Any historian worth their salt at the time would tell you that most generals at that time are not memorable ones. That's not to diminish Napoleon's accomplishments but rather to show that beating mediocre generals totally inflates your WAR rather than struggling to beat a great general. The other general's WAR is not factored in the slightest.

Keep in mind this doesn't account for shit that are complete miraculous tactical events like intercepting intel or factor in logistics in the slightest. It is strictly a (reported) numbers and win/loss comparison to one's peers. It's simply a shallow approach to history and should be dismissed as the simplistic blog post it is.

>a good general is one that wins a lot of battles
Caesar was impressive because he had stiff competition and didn't end up having his new form of government be overthrown.

>time didn't exist during mongol era

& Humanities just got blown the fuck out again.

SCIENCE always wins sweetiepies.

Well any "model" is probably retarded however it did get this one right.

He fought 60 battles and lost 8 actually.

You act as though Ceasar fought against ridiculous odds like Napoleon did. Ceasar was never outnumbered 11:1, let alone 3:1. Ceasar won only a handful of legitimately genius victories.

And Caesar did not command as many men as Napoleon commanded.

That's not even close to a model you illiterate fuck. That is a histogram.

Nappy had designs on landing in New Orleans and making his presence known there too. What might have been?

>Grant is shown as better than Lee

Why, New Orleans would have been French for as long as Cairo!

we don't talk about that

he won didn't he

Napoleon is the best in this model because he fought the most battles by far. The WAR stat is interesting, but he's on a similar slope to Alexander and Caesar (except just a tad worse because he lost a couple)

ah I fucked up that line but you get the idea

any statistic which shows the superiority of FRËNCH generals over Pr*Ssoid sub-humans can't be that bad

Doesn't make sense really
Alexander the Great won every one of his battles, for example, while Napoleon lost some. Alexander has a better win ratio here

Napoleon was genetically and ethnically Italian. His family was of Tuscan origin, he spoke Corsican as his first language, and he never learned to speak French properly. Also he was a raven-haired grey-eyed swarthy young man of below average height with a large curved nose.

t. It*Loid subhuman

you should compare the circumstances they were in
Phillip II left Alexander with a superb army,probably the best of the era
Sarissa wielding phalanx were like introducing stirrups on horses or breach loaded cannos,and his companions were terrific,only cataphracts would match their prowess
in comparison French cuirassiers could be match by Prussian hussars and Russian guards and Australian had the best cav
the French artillery,while superb was actually inferior to Russian cannonery

This triggers me more every time I read it

>How to take a screenshot

Caesar frequently fought heavily outnumber in Gaul
He also beat another of the greatest generals in history, Pompeii, fighting troops of equal quality in a 2 : 1 battle on unfavorable terrain.

I never said anything to the contrary. What I said is that shouldn't be the only factor they look at and is a big reason why using sabermetrics for something like this is asinine.

Did you read the damn article? The metrics that moron used don't account for that.

That's pretty bad.

Weight should be given to how good the armies are.
Was a British general that had state of the art technology that defeats some Zulu warriors carrying spears while highly outnumbered a great general?

It's fun because this sounds really similar to some boxing debates
To provide you with some normie comparison,

Napo would be Tyson: a such dominant champ that many consider that he didn't had proper rivals, while others think that he basically reaped other "could be" champs stopping their possible success on their tracks.

Caesar would be more like a Joe Frazier who had fights like Foreman, Quarry, Ellis, Ali

To even further my point, box has a fuck ton of statistics, and even then you have really long discussion about "who was best than x" due the context of the era

Context > statistics

any article that uses the phrase "and the math proves it" in the title is trash clickbait and is never trustworthy.

Grant won the west and the east.

>Robert E Lee is the other outlier
will lost causers ever recover?

Fellow /box/y. Wanted to say the same thing. Hell look at the loma-rigo discussion atm where the externalitties are being used as a defense for greatness while there is a direct head-to-head loss.
Sometimes this is even valid (see Roy Jones (goat) vs that welsh fuck)

I dig the idea. So ve had napoleon and cesar, who could be a parallel to Alexander?

I fucking LOVE science, dude.

>this land belongs to me
>no it doesn't it's mine

Alexander didn't lose

He also fought personally in every battle, which no general in the last 1000 years can claim

Which was a battle Pompey especially did not want to fight, and only attacked due to pressure from senators and other outsiders.

I would say the exact same thing, though his success in the Wet and the Middle East does prove he's still worthy of consideration.

Mostly because time was on Pompey’s side and he was content starving Caesar’s army into submission, yet his Republican backers demanded that Caesar be crushed in battle in order to make a point

even then, wasn't that only because Wellesley was amazing on the defensive, and subpar on the offensive?
t. anglo

Caesar was usually not outnumbered in Gaul actually. There's only a few mentions of him being outnumbered as
said Pompey didn't even want to fight. Ceasar would have been screwed if Pompey hadn't made a mistake. Additionally we only really know of 19 battles he fought in.

> However Subedai of Mongol waged conquered 32 countries, waged 65 successful battles, conquered more area than ANY general in history of mankind, defeated both Poland and Hungary within 2 days of each other and over 500 KM apart.

Ridiculous statement.

Subotai was nowhere near most of those battles, the Mongol battles and conquest are spread onto a number of generals, that is the issue why any of them individually cannot claim much.

Subotai and Batu divided their forces in the previous conquest and Subotai divided the army when entering Hungary and Poland.

Subotai had literally nothing to do with the battle of Legnica apart from ordering an army to enter Poland.

Same thing goes for Genghis, the dude was sometimes not even in the same region as some of "his" battles while they were happening.

The study is laughable.

Firstly, it removes nuance completely, it matter much against who you fought, Lee fighting other starved American draftees is not the same as Ladislav of Hungary battling the fucking Mongol Horde of Nogai Khan in the second invasion of Hungary.

Also, Alexander did not have just 9 battles lol, he had at least 20 when you count the Balkan battles.

If you're going to count allied/predecessor generals (Phillip, Diadochi, Agrippa, Sulla, Marius) then you're completely off your rocker. Napoleon had a number of extremely good, some undefeated, contemporaries like Davout, Ney, and Murat. Archduke Charles was a good general, Kutuzov was well established. One problem with your statement is the lack of European wars going into the Revolution and the lack of them right after.

>Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate States Army, finished with a negative WAR (-1.89), suggesting an average general would have had more success than Lee leading the Confederacy’s armies.
>German field marshal Erwin Rommel, nicknamed the ‘Desert Fox’ for his successes in North Africa during World War II, also performed poorly in this model, finishing with -1.953 WAR.

>Among post-World War II generals, Israeli commanders stood out.

/pol/ BTFO

He's a general. Chinese generals have been dictating the battles from far since I believe nearing the end of the warring states.

I understand that your concept of generalship is close combat fighting because of the greeks/romans. However Mongols are the Asian general breed. They utilize intelligence, networking, strategy.

>Undefeated
>Greatest marshal of the middle ages
>Basically reunited the kingdom of Leon after Ferdinand the first autism
>Built his own army
>BTFO legit states
>Conquered Valencia
>BTFO the Almoravids on his own
>Always outnumbered
How would based Rodrigo fare in that meme metric?

Shitty opposition