If you have a kind of government that massively disincentivises and largely makes it implausible for large scale reforms, as well as a high density of officers, and continual, motivated service, it is practically implausible to ever reform your army towards common sense
Furthermore, if you are the general that inherits a structure system of which was majorly already being implemented and noted down as future plans, that does not make you the inventor or arbiter of it, so much as it does the figurehead
I am saying that there is a lot more to the success of the French army than just formations alone
And a lot of the success of the army was from the overall changes and combinations of them, not just formations
I did not mean to imply that Napoleon was bad, or that he did nothing, hence why I said he was still influential in part of the formations, and did much
But his prowess is overrated, especially when many of the officers underneath him were quite capable
And especially when officers from other armies that were far more limited than his own circumstance outperformed him regardless
He clearly was not the end all that people present him as
But he is still a good general
It is especially evident he was not nearly as interested in the meritocratic system as revolutionnaires because he not only went back towards autocratic systems, he doubled down on them
But it is also not entirely the most novel concept, you can definitely examine the systems and mechanics of many other armies and leaders, and there are lots of resembling features, even things such as operational autonomy, the Swedish system definitely focused on far smaller scales and autonomy, of which even pioneered the concept of more mobile and light artillery, in concept even more so than Napoleon - restrained by the time.
I think you have misinterpreted me as being a lot more critical than I am
Overrated does not mean bad, it just means the perception is not matched, at least to me it is not
Estien was a genius, Balck was a genius, Gustavus, Temujin, etc., Napoleon came into power of a system that was changing with, or without him
And at a time of rather significant weakness in most powers to be
It is also important to re-emphasise the fact that it is one thing to beat someone within a constrained system, it is another thing entirely to have a system that actively makes your system obsolete, and win against that obsolete system
But even in saying that, given that all the elements of what Napoleon did are there, even in concentration, ~100 years or more before he even came about, it is hard to say that he invented these ideas or was doing something particularly new
The new part that was probably most important was the major reformation towards civilian driven officership, and that was not his alone, at least not as far as I know
The maintenance and creation of units such as the Guard is also very telling, I feel, given that it indicates his inclination towards traditional engagements and strategies, rather than focusing majorly on CO/NCO dispersion and standard quality - one of the most important parts in future wars and the efficacy of units in them
You can argue that the achievement of Napoleon is probably in his ability to observe and extract from history, he had a habit of referencing older officers and commanders, and for good reason - a lot of his strategies, decisions about structure, were all very similar to a hodge podge of officers from the century before or so.
But when you are discussing who deserves credit and the concept of genius, which, to me means pioneering and of marked contribution, or of unparalleled application, I cannot really see how Napoleon is particularly noteworthy in comparison to many
I would go as far as to say that it is entirely possible the French army could have been more effective with no Emperor and no Napoleon at all, I do not think most of the French campaigns would have been nearly as successful or as feasible with a slower and more gradual reformation, or without the ability to command vast resources and with little in the way of bureaucratic resistance, sure, you might have lost out on a lot of the windows for those conquests entirely
But the resulting army would have likely been even more similar to modern practices than it was underneath him
Even when one analyses a general from ancient times, it is hardly true to say that what won the day is them, it is a merely a part of the equation, something as simple as a Centurion can lose a battle, depending on how disastrously bad his decision making is, or otherwise. Something as simple as how well trained your foot soldier generally is can have a huge effect on the outcome of something. And I think a lot of 'great' leaders get this effect, and you kind of have to apply such a biased lens to consider any figure great, but, Napoleon is almost characterised by it. I would say Napoleon is very similar in perception and bias as Erwin Rommel was.
