It’s not a proof but it’s a creative way to measure this. I’ve only seen WAR used in baseball. It’s interesting to see it applied to another domain even if there are holes in it.

Well, if it's not a proof, then it's not a proof, right? You see more interest and creativity than I do in the article here, and that's fine. But surely that doesn't affect the fact that the title's claim to have proved Napoleon was "the Best General Ever" is a) a gargantuan overstatement, and b) unhelpfully provocative. People would probably be more charitable to the article if it hadn't totally misrepresented itself in this way.

Can you prove it's a "gargantuan overstatement"?

I think you know that's not a reasonable thing to ask for a "proof" for.

On the other hand, anything which someone claims to have proved is a reasonable thing to expect a proof for.

I'm not the one throwing clickbait headlines around.

If the title were changed to something less baity it would be contrary to all the other articles on HN that go from more sensible titles to something very baity.