Napoleon installed a High Morale in his soldiers.
I have read many Napoleon biographies, and other military stratgies books.

Okay, if his column strategy was so horrid why did it beat the Prussians, Russians, ect. countless times? No, what led to his demise was his invasion of Russia, and the Spanish War.

They were poorly disciplined soldiers. It failed miserably against the British and yet the strategy never changed.

I like how you simply repeat statements as if that somehow makes them fact.

"The superb officer corps that existed in the army suffered increasingly higher casualties in the later years, especially after 1808, as the quality of the rank and file decreased, necessitating more sacrifices from the officers to inspire the men to great deeds or even to hold their morale together. As the years of warfare dragged on the officer corps was filled with every available means, such as promotion from the ranks or commissions granted to newly entered cadets, often with adverse effects on performance. The same acquitted itself with the rank and file who were made up more and more of partial or untrained conscripts during the later years ."
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_genius.html

There goes the highly trained, high morale troops...

As for the column, while it may have worked against the lesser armies it failed against the British. A great tactician recognizes this failure and changes tactics to combat the deficiency, not simply repeats the same mistake ad nauseam.

You know what, Ill give you the Columns.

"This system of army corps gave Napoleon a great advantage over his opponents during the consulate and early empire.

During the campaign of 1796 in Italy, General Bonaparte introduced the reorganization of his cavalry and artillery forces that he would adapt later universally throughout the French army. Napoleon streamlined the existing system, distributing a cavalry division to each army corps and forming the remainder, principally the heavy cavalry, into a virtual corps of its own as a part of the army reserve. This corps was held exclusively under his command for commitment at the decisive point on the day of battle. These changes greatly improved the cavalry's efficiency. One of the most famous of French cavalry officers of the period, General Marbot, regarded Napoleon as the "...best light cavalry officer in any European army...Both in irregular warfare and major operations he was a most remarkable officer." Like the cavalry Napoleon also organized an artillery reserve under his personnel command for the commitment at the decisive moment on the battle field."

What about this eh?

A subordinate claiming he is the best... that's certainly objective and unbiased...

That quote came from the link of the website you posted.

And we both seem very biased ourselves

it's interesting to see that when you can't come up with a good comeback, you scoop to calling it biased. Very nice <3

It is biased. It was a friend of Napoleon's. Had it been a British or Russian cavalry officer making the claim THEN it would hold weight. Surely you can see the lack of objectivity in that situation.

Napoleon was respected by his enemies.

Next you will be telling me Alexander Great was a horrid military leader because of his phalanxes were "to deep". I mean you have to admit Napoleon was a great military leader.

I never said otherwise. I even said he was good but not the best due to his glaring errors and failures.

Im curious, who would you place as the Greatest Military General in history?

Don't have the requisite knowledge to legitimately opine on the topic. Only know about a small subset of military commenders.

Do you think Alexander could fit the category?

kgb i wonder why you love napoleon so much

He certainly good. What I know of him, anecdotal as it is, would place him in that tier.

But of course, there is the difficulty in such a discussion in determining whether leadership ability should be included in such a discussion. Obviously it is an integral aspect of being a good general but it is distinctly different from strategic concerns as your title focuses on (in my interpretation)

@IronHeart- I admire him.

@Richard- I would say so.

What would the qualities of A great General be, in your opinion?

Napoleon may have been a good military leader but he certainly wasnt the best.

Also, as Sharpe rightly points out, a french officer calling Napoleon the best light cavalry commander is completely bias and there fore meaningless.

No, I say Alexander The Great was the best.

Also When I posted that, I was referring to his Corps system.