> Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo.
Even had he won at Waterloo, there was 0% change it would not have ended the same way.
> That makes two serious defeats.
Actually far more then two.
> Wellington was a worthy opponent so.
Wellington is overrated, the reason Waterloo is so hyped its because its the only victory of the British on land and they did that with Prussian support. The Russian defeated Napoleon more then anybody else, and likely the Austrians after that.
> So yes, it was a viable campaign.
I'm not gone say it was not viable. But in terms of risk reward it was still bad strategy. He had many political options other then full on invading Russia.
> He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so.
They actually made amazing offers to him the he refused.
> Just like everyone else.
I would agree. I don't think he was uniquely bad. I'm just saying that I don't really think he ranks among the very best general/statesmen.
Was he power hungry? Sure. More than others? I don't think so, just more successful. Russia, at that time, was the only continental power left as a potential ally of the British. Which had opposed the French in every single war before. So yes, it was a viable campaign. One that cost him everything in the end. It was, IMHO, the last period which allowed for decisive battles. And Napoleon was really good at those.
He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. And his economic policies were lacking as well. Doesn't mean that he is among the best military leaders so far. And again, a lot of his policies were really progressive. And sure, he built upon the Revolution. Nobody exists in a vacuum, Alexander built on his father's achievements. Ceasar on the Roman Republic. Just like everyone else.