for the endless "greatest commander(s)" debates -
fixed points given/subtracted for each battle won/lost
variable points given/subtracted according to other parameters (e.g., strength, casualties and losses)
To determine "the greatest commander", I would give him a number of points for each battle he commanded in and had the decisive position. The number of points given for each battle is deterrmined by the following parameters:
- basic points for each battle (+ 1 points for each battle won, - 1 points for each battle lost; for each "major" battle, +/- 2 points)
but I admit that this give an unfair advantage to commanders who fought in many battles and wars, so these numbers could be adjusted to give more chances to commanders in pacific countries
- did he win against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.1 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.1 if he had 10% more troops)
- did he lose against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.2 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.2 if he had 10% more troops)
penalty should be harsher for a general losing with numerical superiority than for a general winning with numerical superiorty - incompetence shouldn't be rewarded
- who was in a defensive position? (+ 0.5 if the enemy was in a defensive position, - 0.5 if he was in a defensive position)
- which army had more support weapons ? (+ 0.5 if the enemy had more cavalry and artillery, - 0.5 if his army had more cavalry and artillery)
- which army had air superiorty ? (+ 0.5 if the enemy had air superiority, - 0.5 if his forces had air superiority)
- was the battle against an enemy usualy winning battles (+ 0.5 if the enemy won most battles in the war, - 0.5 if the enemy lost most battles in the war)
- how great was the prestige of the hostile army (+ 0.5 if the antagonistic country won previous wars, - 0.5 if the other country lost previous wars)
this is to take into account the technological and doctrinal superiority or inferiority of the enemy.
- how many soldiers he lost in each battle (+ 0.1 if the enemy lost 10% of its troops etc., - 0.1 if the general lost 10% if his troops)
- was the war won or lost by his country (+ 0.5 if his country won the war at the end, - 0.5 if his country lost the war at the end, - 1 if the war was already won/lost when the battle was fought)
this is to take into account that a general should know when his engagement is necessary
For example, Napoléon would gain the following points at Austerlitz:
+ 2 for the major victory
+ 0.2 for winning with 20% less troops than the enemy (73,200 vs. ~ 90,000)
+ 0.5 since the Austrians and Russians controlled the Pratzen Heights
+ 0.5 since the Austrians and Russians had more cannons
+/- 0 since the air force played no role in the battle
(BTW it was only used at Fleurus)
- 0.5 since the French had already won the great majority of battles
- 0.5 since the Russians and Austrians had lost the two previous wars against France
+ 0.2 since he lost ~ 8,480 soldiers or 11% and his enemies lost 28,000 soldiers or 31% of their army
+ 0.5 France won the war
= 2.9
For Waterloo, Napoléon would "gain":
- 2 for the major defeat
+ 0.98 for losing with 49% less troops than the enemy (73,000 vs. ~ 118,000)
+ 0.5 since Wellington fought from a defensive position
- 0.5 since he had more cannons than the British
+/- 0 since the air force played no role in the battle
- 0.5 since the French had already won the two preceeding battkes
+ 0.5 since Britain had won the previous war
- 0.25 since he lost 41,000 soldiers or 56% and his enemies lost 24,000 soldiers or 20% of their army
- 0.5 France lost the war
= - 1.77
I'm too lazy now to do it for all Napoleonic battles
Another example, Hannibal at Cannae:
+ 2 for the major victory
+ 0.43 for winning with 43% less troops than the enemy (50,000 vs. ~ 86,400)
+/- 0 due to no advantages of tarrain
- 0.5 since he had more cavalry than the Romans
+/- 0 since the air force played no role in the battle
- 0.5 since he had already won the previous battles
+ 0.5 since the Romans had won the previous war
+ 0.6 since he lost 5.700 soldiers or 11% and his enemies lost 60,000 soldiers or 69% of their army
- 0.5 Carthage lost the war
= 2.03
Then add up all points of each general and see which general gained the most points.
Edit: I came up with an idea to give less active generals the same chances as generals who fought many battles. Simply divide the points for each battle by the total number of battles the general fought. Thus, a mediocre general who gained an average of 0.5 points in his career would lose against a military genius fighting only one battle, but achieving a great victory of 1.7 or so.
If you asked me for a possible outcome, I would bet on Alexander the Great. He fought most battles being in numerical inferiority, won almost all of them, won all his wars and never had a major superiority regarding support weapons.