For more modern generals like Patton, that can be attributed to the relatively small number of battles commanded.įor more about Arsht's results, responses to criticism, and his findings, visit his post on Medium's Towards Data Science. There were some surprises in the model, like the apparent failures of generals like Robert E. Fighting fewer battles doesn't help, either. The more battles a commander fights and wins, the more opportunities to raise their scores. Kutuzov gets a -.49 for Borodino, meaning a replacement for him had a 51% chance of losing anyway. 49, which means a replacement general had a 50% chance of still winning the battle. So the model devised by Arsht gave Bonaparte a WAR score of. For example, at the Battle of Borodino that pitted Napoleon against Russian General Mikhail Kutuzov, the French had a slight numerical advantage against the Russians. The real power is ranking the general's WAR score, the aforementioned Wins Above Replacement.įor each battle, the general receives a weighted WAR score, a negative score for a loss. The general's forces were categorized and his numerical advantage or disadvantage weighted to reflect tactical ability. He then compiled lists of key commanders, total forces, and of course, the outcome. There are just a few caveats.įirst, where is all this information coming from? Although an imperfect source, Arsht complied Wikipedia data from 3,580 battles and 6,619 generals. The math is tricky but the list is definitive. It starts with comparing the number of wins from that general to a replacement general in the same circumstances.
Ethan Arsht applied the principles of baseball sabermetrics to the performances of history's greatest generals.
Someone went and moneyball-ed military history.
0 kommentar(er)
