Should clarify that I forgot to write down if Suchet and Soult had traded places in 1815, with Soult commanding the army in Italy against the Austrians while Suchet was Napoleon's chief of staff; Soult was a fine Feldherr, but chief-of-staff-ing was not his strength, while Suchet likely would have performed creditably in the role. If either Coalition force in the double battle of June 16 had been destroyed by the commitment of D'Erlon's corps, Napoleon would have thrown them so far back on their divergent lines of communications that the other could be destroyed without interference. He would have been able to meet the Austrian and Russian thrust over the Rhine with 240,000 men by mid-August, with 116,000 immediately around Paris, 25,000 at Lyons, and 60,000 to oppose the Austrians in Italy. The Coalition would still have a significant numerical advantage (170,000 Russians and 210,000 Austro-Germnas), but if anyone could win big and let some political crisis split the Coalition, it was Napoleon.Desaix might have become a Marshal if he wasn't killed at Marengo, and if he and Soult had been switched, he might have become known as a worthy successor to Berthier.
To be fair to AJ, he came as close as anyone to decisively beating US Grant, which has to count for something. The same cannot be said for Reynolds.Well, there's that, too. I guess he's the Union's Albert Sidney Johnston, lionized on scant evidence.