I am frustrated by a few of the answers here so I thought I’d put my poor 2 cents in.

Folks, please read the question before you try and answer it!

The question is “Why was Napoleon such a brilliant military Strategist.”

The question was NOT “Why was Napoleon such a brilliant Tactician.”

“Strategist,” not “Tactician.”

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “strategy” as: “a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war.”

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “tactics” as: “a (1): the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat.”

Two entirely different things. One is long/broad scale thinking/operating utilizing an entire nations resources for your ends.

One is controlling/moving your units in small scale combat.

Some of the answers here touch on strategic thought but then lose it to focus on tactics.

Napoleon was a terrible strategist and as a tactician his skills ran the gamut from genius at Austerlitz to sluggish incompetence at Borodino and Waterloo.

To take just a couple of instances, Napoleon never comprehended the need for a navy that could rival Britain’s either for naval protection, for invasion or to expand his powers across the seas.

His victory at the Battle of the Pyramids, for example, was totally wasted by Admiral Nelson’s victory over the French fleet at the Battle of the Nile, forcing Napoleon to abandon his army in Egypt and personally flee for his life back to France only illustrates this point.

I guess someone should have given Napoleon the STRATEGIC insight to not send an entire army across theMediterranian sea if you don’t first have control or at least parity of control of that sea.

His even greater ignominious defeat in Russia also illustrates his utter lack of strategic forethought. His “Grande Armée” was a very large force, numbering 680,000 soldiers (including 300,000 of French departments). It was the largest army ever assembled in the history of warfare up to that point…”-Wiki.

“…When the remnants of Napoleon's main army crossed (Battle of Berezina - Wikipedia) the Berezina River (Berezina River - Wikipedia) in late November, only 27,000 effective soldiers remained.—Wiki. One of the greatest, perhaps THE greatest defeats in the history of warfare up to that point.

Yet again Napoleon abandoned the remainder of his army and fled back to France.

I guess someone should have given Napoleon the STRATEGIC insights that sending the biggest, hungriest army in history into an enemy’s country that might, I don’t know, use “scorched earth” tactics on you, or might have a climate, i.e. winter, that might make your troops shiver a bit, or be so large that normal supply lines might be stretched out or put at risk of being broken by fast moving mounted troops, i.e. Cossacks, or who might actually set fire to their own cities to deny you shelter, might be a poor idea.

His total defeat in Spain and Portugal by Wellington also showed his lack of strategic vision.

“Napoleon then invaded the Iberian Peninsula, hoping to extend the Continental System and choke off British trade with the European mainland, and declared his brother Joseph Bonaparte the King of Spain in 1808. The Spanish and the Portuguese revolted with British support. The Peninsular War lasted six years, featured extensive guerrilla warfare, and ended in victory for the Allies.”-Wiki

I guess someone should have given Napoleon the STRATEGIC insights that when you usurp the Spanish King and replace him with your own brother, terrorize and murder your former allies…and then are surprised they revolt, join with the British, led by Lord Wellington, and the resulting war bleeds your army white for six years and allows the British into southern France, maybe he should have let his brother run a bowling alley or do something else

“In 1813, Prussia and Austria joined Russian forces in the War of the Sixth Coalition (War of the Sixth Coalition - Wikipedia) against France. A lengthy military campaign culminated in a large Allied army defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig (Battle of Leipzig - Wikipedia) in October 1813. The Allies then invaded France (Campaign in north-east France (1814) - Wikipedia) and captured Paris in the spring of 1814, forcing Napoleon to abdicate in April.”—Wiki.

I guess someone should have given Napoleon the STRATEGIC insights to have either occupied these countries he had already beaten, or else make them a real part of his plan (?) i.e. given them a bigger piece of the “pie,” to keep those countries from rebelling, joining forces and kicking his ass.

“Napoleon escaped from Elba in February 1815 and took control of France once again. The Allies responded by forming a Seventh Coalition (Hundred Days - Wikipedia) which defeated him at the Battle of Waterloo (Battle of Waterloo - Wikipedia) in June.”—Wiki

Yep, they did it again.

And about Napoleon’s tactical skills. His great battle at Austerlitz was truly a masterpiece, one to study through the ages, his “Cannae,” his “Guagamela.” But he never repeated that same level of expertise again. He won battles, yes, but none to be fawned over.

In many ways his four great battles were Austerlitz, Borodino, Leipzig and Waterloo.

All battles are important but let’s take his biggest, Borodino:

At Borodino, his army, although decimated by the hunger, heat, disease and starvation of the road into Russia, was still large. He had been fighting a series of skirmishes and battles the whole way, but now he had what he had been hoping and praying for: the one big, decisive battle with the Russians.

These decisive battles are what make or break a war or a general. They are hard to create/find, but when the occur, you can win an entire campaign even an entire war.

(With good STRATEGIC thinking and vision comes the insight that you have to be thinking about empires instead of countries, countries instead of wars, wars instead of battles, battles instead of skirmishes.

Napoleon only could see “battles.” Alexander the Great could see “empires.”

Hannibal had his tactical masterpiece at Cannae, and he saw the “big picture” better than Napoleon. But after Cannae, he was never able to bring the Romans into that one, big decisive battle, and instead wandered up and down Italy for almost a decade, until (among other things) his supplies ran low. He had to return to Carthage, Carthage was completely destroyed and he killed himself (perhaps) and relegated himself to the “also ran” of military history, behind, of course, the father of them all, Alexander. Hannibal did some amazing things but his war ended up in complete annihilation of his home. Where’s the victory in that?

(Another thing that burns me: people, even on these other answers, go on and on about Napoleon’s tactical skills, true or not. They never take it the next step. Where did Napoleon learn these tactics? Cyrus the Great? Alexander? Scipio? Hannibal? His pastry chef? And how did he modify them, mix them, utilize them? To just talk about them without these issues points to the false belief that Napoleon simply invented them up out of whole clothe. Give credit where it’s due. (Even if some generals don’t like to admit it) almost all of it comes from Alexander as he was the greatest true military genius of all time. But even Alexander learned from his father, Phillip II, or perhaps Memnon of Rhodes.)

Alexander was able to outmaneuver Darius and his entire tough Persian army into one of those decisive battles at Gaugamela. Darius overwhelmingly outnumbered Alexander, but this was nothing new for him; he had spent his entire young career defeating armies much larger than his own.

Alexander knew that numbers only tell in time, that it didn’t matter if he was outnumbered across the entire battlefield, “all” (!) he needed to do was to be able to trick/out fox/out maneuver Darius with his “Companion” cavalry, THE greatest combat unit in history, (along with the Mongols,) to gain numeric superiority at one single, tiny but crucial spot on the battlefield: between the impossibly tight space of two of Darius’ units, then breakthrough, exploit it and rout the Persians from the rear.

At Borodino Napoleon had his “Gaugamela.” Here were the Russians, the chance for a decisive victory was at hand. So what did he do?

He ran his precious formations straight into the Russian’s guns, particularly at the prepared Great Redoubt, and they were slaughtered. No attempts at maneuver, no wheeling his guns like a brace of pistols like at Austerlitz, no finesse, no personal presence to inspire the troops.

Nothing.

Just marched “one-two one -two) straight ahead into the Russian’s prepared positions/artillery. He also held back the Imperial Guard, to “save them” for a later date when they might be needed more. ?????? “Save them fora rainy day?” The Russian army was in front of them, something they would probably never have again on this scale!!!! Someone should have screamed in Napoleon’s ear, “Hey, Shorty!! IT’S RAINING!!!!”

“Napoleon's Imperial Guard, the only unit on the battlefield that saw no fighting, was available to swing into action at a moment's notice. In refusing to commit the Guard, some historians believe, he lost his one chance to destroy the Russian army and to win the campaign.”-Wiki

Crucial wording, that: “Win the “campaign,” not just the battle.

“The fighting involved around 250,000 troops and left at least 70,000 casualties, making Borodino the deadliest day of the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon's Grande Armée launched an attack against the Russian army, driving it back from its initial positions but failing to gain a decisive victory.”-Wiki

Almost 1 out of 3 men was hit. Of the ones that were wounded almost all ended up dying. The bloodiest day in the entire 19th century.

“Both armies were exhausted after the battle and the Russians withdrew from the field the following day. However, the French had no clear way of forcing Czar Alexander to capitulate because the Russian army was not decisively defeated, resulting in the ultimate defeat of the French invasion following the retreat from Moscow in October.”-WIKI

In some books, and with some “experts,” Napoleon is given credit for the victory. I don’t. When you lose 35,000 dead in a single battle with who knows how many enemies left to fight including the main Russian army, losing 35,000 men you simply can not afford to lose, I don’t call that “victory.” And some may say that Napoleon won because he held the field while the Russians retreated (in good order,) that just shows how ignorant some people can be: who cares if you are left standing in a useless blood-soaked field, that you will march off tomorrow?

“…using the same accounting method for both armies brings the actual French Army casualty count to 34,000–35,000. Some 52,000 Russian troops were reported as dead, wounded or missing.”-Wiki

Some apologists use the excuse that Napoleon was having a slight kidney stone attack or struggling with piles, (hemorrhoids.) Maybe so, then the poor darling should have had a pillow for his tender rear.

(The same excuse was made for him again, when he yet again used the : “Go Get ‘Em”/Straight-Ahead tactics at waterloo, another great battle that he lost.)

Alexander fought from the front, the greatest soldier of his or any time. He had 8 great wounds, (look it up, it’s enough to curdle your stomach,) and once rode into battle with a compound fracture of his fibula, riding his monster of a horse, Bucephalus, into a battle which, of course, he won (he never, repeat, never lost a battle) with, as you may recall, no stirrups when you had to hang onto your horse by your lower legs, i.e. fibula.

And what came of it? What came from Napoleon’s bumblings? Did France become a European “Superpower?” No. Did it help to make England a “Superpower?” Yes. What additional lands, peoples, resources did Napoleon win? On the only term it matters, the long term, none.

So what did come of it? Napoleonic scholar: “David Gates estimated that 5,000,000 died in the Napoleonic Wars.”-WIKI

5 million died the 20 years of Napoleon’s bid for power. Let me repeat that a; 5 million died in his wars.

And what about Napoleon’s France, how did she fare from Napoleon’s “genius:”

“French Empire[edit]

• 371,000 killed in action[1]
• 800,000 killed by wounds, accidents or disease, primarily in the disastrous invasion of Russia[2]
• 600,000 civilians[2]
• 65,000 French allies (mainly Poles fighting for independence lost in 1795)[2]
• 1,800,000 French and allies (mostly Germans and Poles) dead in action, disease and missing[1]
• 1,700,000 Frenchmen from "pre-1792 borders"-Wiki

“The effect of the war on France over this time period was considerable. According to David Gates, the Napoleonic Wars cost France at least 916,000 men. This represents 38% of the conscription class of 1790–1795. This rate is over 14% higher than the losses suffered by the same generation one hundred years later fighting Imperial Germany in WWI.”-Wiki

“The French population suffered long-term effects through a low male-to-female population ratio. At the beginning of the Revolution, the numbers of males to females was virtually identical. By the end of the conflict only 0.857 males remained for every female.”-Wiki

“Combined with new agrarian laws under the Napoleonic Empire that required landowners to divide their lands to all their sons rather than the first born, France's population never recovered. By the middle of the 19th century France had lost its demographic superiority over Germany and Austria and even the United Kingdom.”-Wiki

(Although from Napoleon we DID get Spam and TV Dinners. I’m not kidding, look it up. It really is a good story of how Napoleon offered rewards for anyone who could find ways to preserve food.)

It always burns me to hear so many military “experts” swoon over Napoleon without really understanding the entire weight of the catastrophe to Europe this incompetent megalomaniac brought. His vanity, his foolishness, his lack of STRATEGIC vision, his entire lack of compassion has shown this murdering incompetent to be, personally, a monster.

Napoleon was, in military terms, depite all the hype and PR, a loser.

I gladly await comments.

I apologize for the harsh tone of my answer. I just find it frustrating when people who unqualified to answer important questions about history do, and are believed, leading to terrible myths and misinformation.