Didn’t he personally lead his troops across a bridge in Italy? You have a fairly low opinion of his generalship, it seems. Most military historians and soldiers alike, consider him to rank among the greatest Generals of all time, Clausewitz considered him the god of war.One of the most sucessful commanders of all time, he had great strengths but also great weaknesses. Often unobjective seeingtings as he wanted things to be, and making decsions on the bais of ego than objetcive military need, his weaknesses were much less apparent in his early career where his armies were much better the the opposition, with some very good sub commanders, and he egnerally out numbered the opposition. If that context his optimism tended to pay off. IN his later career when he was under pressure his flaws were more apparant and costly.
Tactics - (? C?) Very little evidence that he ever took effective tactical control of a battle. Napoloen come in as an Amry commander without any real experince leading troops in battle, not a battalion, a regiment, a brigade or division. He had very effetcive and experinced divsion commanders from the start. He seems to have been happy enough to run batttles form the rear, dealing in broad strokes leaving the divsion commanders to run their own show.
Strategy - (C) Not a strong piont, whenever the campaign was not just two armies rushing towards each other he struggled to be effective. His strategic judgement was highly questionable as he tended to be unobjective.
Logistsics. - (D) just poor. Motsly as a matter of ploicy, that pushing men and troops could lead to short term success. Successful in short campaigns in central Europe. pretty awful outside that context. Never seemed to graped the importance.
Operational Maneuver - (A+) Great Strength, Napoleon understood the implications of the Corps/Division system and how that could be used in opertaions. This is the core of most of his sucess and improtance.
Organization - (A) Great Strength - a great ability to organize things, not flawless asteh acavlry corps in Russia shows.
Man management (Generals) - (D) promoted Generals on family relations and favoruitism, leaidng to poor commanders in vital roles, tolerated repeated poor performance, encouraged sqaubbling and never defined clear chain of command leading to confusion and lack of clear authority.
Man Management (Troops) - (A) one of the great manipulators of his men's morale. He knew how to motivate the troops. They generally loved him.
Care of Troops - Poor. (E) uncaring.