>>718944362
He won plenty after his coronation but you're onto something, Napoleon was at his best when he was the underdog. After becoming Emperor he became more and more complacent and even sloppy and it started to cost him dearly (such as losing Lannes at Aspern-Essling which was undeniably caused by a fuck-up on Napoleon's part), culminating with Russia where he was at his worst ever and didn't plan for failure in what was probably one of the worst case of victory disease recorded.
People always talk about Ulm or Austerlitz and they're certainly impressive but I reckon his first Italian campaign, as the green General sent on a secondary front during the war of the First Coalition, and his last, as the doomed Emperor making a last stand during the invasion of France after Waterloo, were just better as he was doing so much with so little.
