You write, "Would you mind explaining how 'Smith showed the way how future wars were to be fought.'?"
Combined power of naval and land forces. The active utilization of local forces. Unity of command. All aspects of Smith's command during the Siege of Acre and Maida.
"Could you also explain how Maida 'was a great example of combined arms naval and land and also utilizing local forces'?"
British navy (Smith) drops an army force on the coast of Calabria to assault the French army, that force fought within range of Smith's ships, local Calabrian guerilla's (under Smith's directions) threaten the French army from the rear. Decisive British victory.
Maybe there were earlier examples of this type of warfare but from what I've seen, this is was not a typical action of the day. I have a book coming "Seapower ashore : 200 years of Royal Navy operations on land." that includes in it's description stating something to the effect, "starting from Sir Sidney Smith to the Falkland Is. ....."
"Further, could you elaborate on your idea that Napoleon did not care for the troops of the Armee de l'Orient, .."
N. (then just General Bonaparte) abandoned the Armee de l'Orient to their fate. Just reading what the French troops had to go through, all they wanted to do was go back to France. It was Smith's understanding that the French soldiers were extremely unhappy and hated the general who deserted them. Smith had (French speaking) intelligence operatives who infiltrated behind enemy lines. It was Smith's opinion that the best chance of stopping N. from seizing power in Paris (which Smith predicted he would do) would be to drop every angry solder from the Armee de l'Orient as soon as possible back in France. Of course we will never know if that would have worked but Smith's prediction powers proved to be pretty considerable. See Smith's personal message to N. written on the shutter of his cell in the Temple prison.
Finally, could you explain Smith's 'understanding of Napoleon?
Again, look at Smith's message to N. from his prison cell. He correctly predicted that however high N. was now that it was certain that the wheel of fate would turn and that N. would end up in the exact same prison cell as Smith was currently in. Of course, Smith's prediction was correct, except that N. is reported to have had the Temple prison torn down... just in case.
I sincerely doubt that anyone outside of France, maybe even inside of France, understood N. any better than Sir Sidney Smith. Smith spoke fluent French without an accent; having lived in Caen for several years and learning the language from his mother. Smith lived, under duress of course, in Paris for several years (1796-98) and had access to the community surrounding the Temple prison. Smith clearly understood the French people very well from a first hand experience and he understood nature of their attachment to N.
Another Sidney Smith prediction: he was sure that N. would escape from Elba and that the French people would welcome him back.
Yet another Sidney Smith prediction: while N. was still in Egypt, back in Cairo after getting smacked down in Acre, there were several instances of an officer from Smith meeting with N. (prisoner exchanges or something) and the officer mentioned to Smith that the French had absolutely no news from France. On the next visit, Smith sent along several British Gazettes with the latest news of the unsettled events in Paris. Smith's predicted that N. would try and escape back to France to seize power.
The man who stopped N. from reaching his destiny is a man worthy of study.