You are, of course, free to care or not care about any historical figure, just as I am free to be interested or not interested in the same. I was merely pushing back on the suggestion that Napoleon’s historical reputation for strategic genius was not warranted.
I certainly hope that Scott tells the more interesting story that is closer to the truth than making him a romantic anti-hero, but I suppose we’ll see.
It seems that you’re conflating the moral component with the question of political skill, which I don’t agree with. Stalin and Hitler were two of the 20th century’s most skilled politicians, while also being monsters who brought about tens of millions of deaths and incomprehensible destruction. These concepts are only incompatible by choice.
To use another example from history, would you agree that Genghis Khan was a political and military genius? I would argue that he was every bit the instrument of destruction that any of these other more modern tyrants were, but he was also supremely talented.
