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.