Certainly, Napoleon had faults, and quite a few of them. He was often impulsive, immoderate, and hotheaded when a more measured approach adopted after more consideration would have better served him in particular and France in general. I think he often had an inflated sense of his own abilities when he didn't need to blow his own horn because his abilities in a given situation were just fine, thank you very much, and when his abilities were not up to his usual standards, or most people's, to be honest. I think he overreached for whatever reasons and thus put his gains in jeopardy; I think his sphere of influence was too grandiose and logistically unsustainable. And I think that warfare was not the only response available--or logical--when another European nation declared war first.
On the other hand, I do think, on the whole, Napoleon's positives outweigh his negatives, but I'm not interested in debating to what degree, by how much/many, or in comparison to whom. After all, Napoleon is no more like George III, for example, than chalk to cheese, other than both gentlemen occasionally sat on a throne. Sometimes these arguments remind me of kids squaring off in opposite corners of the sandbox.
And Lord Amherst? A perfect, card-carrying scumbag in his own right. But he has squat to do with Napoleon.