Seek the high ground to survive? Ask Custer.

Napoleon had his horrible blunders, but he also had some
brilliant victories. No one else in Europe at the time was
able to use mobility as a weapon so well as he.
In fact, I would argue that his major blunders were mostly
due to his lack of strong logistics-- The strategies he attempted
to apply were sound, but the ability of his men to follow them
was not.

I also might put Chingiss Kahn on par with Alexander, if
not above him. Under his guidance, the Golden Horde became
the most mobile military force in the history of the world,
and not even the technology of today can match his ability
to move them so far on such short notice. With the exception
of a couple of losses to Japan-- which were pure luck, really--
they had few solid defeats.
In addition, he knew well the power of rumors in getting his
enemies to surrender in fear, and like Alexander even made
allowances for those he conquered. For example, for the Mongols
it was a crime punishable by death to soil water, but he allowed
the Arabs under his rule to continue their practice of washing
themselves and their feet multiple times per day.

As for Sun Tzu, I memorized The Art of War when I was 15,
shortly after The Book of Five Rings. The fact that the book
has lasted for 25 centuries (2,500 years!!) as a manual on
military strategy certain says a lot. But he did blunder, failing
to follow his own advice, and met a gruesome end... I might
give his spot in the top 10 to Cao Cao instead, who could also
make the list as one of the most influential people in human
history, but more importantly has a ton of solid experience,
rather than a compilation of general knowledge.

I would also like to point out that while Montgomery would
never be mistaken for the courageous type who could adapt
and adjust at will, if you gave him time to calculate and plan
he was extremely effective-- The reason the forces against
Rommel at El Alamein were "overwhelming" is because he
gave Montgomery so much time to stack advantages against
him. If Rommel hadn't hesitated, allowing Monty to position
himself so that the terrain nullified his favored attacks, the
battle may have ended in a completely different manner.

I'm also not sure why so many people ignore Wellington,
who was one of the most experienced and successful
generals of his time? Probably has something to do with
the love of Napoleon, whose politics were far more popular
even after they were both no longer relevant?

It's a movie with a lot of "layers". It even addresses respect for gays (in a humorous way), which I haven't seen in many westerns. LOL

The plot is about a 121 year old man being interviewed about his life in the wild west, and probably "embellishing" a story or two. I'd say the theme is about trying to "fit in".