Napoleon's Best Victory

Napoleon Bonaparte was truly a master of the battlefield. He had success after success-But what battle was his greatest? Many point to Austerlitz, though Napoleon himself said he thought it could have been better. It was the political ramifications-not the battle itself-that proved decisive. Others say the Six Days Campaign, though that had no strategic significance. Others point to Jena, though the victory, while complete, was fought in a lop sided battle. Dresden and Friedland inflicted high casualties, Rivioli, Wagram and the Pyramids shaped those respective wars and Marengo proved decisive, although it wasn't entirely won due to Napoleon.

I'd say his finest victory was Ulm. It set him up for Austerlitz, inflicted the most casualties for least amount of losses and did the most for shaping Warfare. His 'Blitzkrieg' style tactics in the campaign were prefect and shaped military ideology to this day. Save perhaps for the Fall of France, no other single campaign since then was nearly as impressive as a strategic masterpiece as Ulm.

But what, are your thoughts?

I would say the Six Days Campaign. In Austerlitz Napoleon had approximately the same number as the enemy and enjoyed better quality in unit quality. But his strategy was cunning and superb still.
In Six Days Campaign Napoleon crushed Blucher's army with barely one-fourth of enemy strength, and most of them were new recruits. But the victory was useless anyway since his cause was already doomed.

After reading a bit on the manoeuvres of Napoleon, I would say Ulm too.

I'd say Austerlitz, the quantity and (pseudo-)quality of the Coalition should've beat Napoleon easy, but instead Nappie kicked their ass

Austerlitz, it's the same general-battle relation as Lee and Chancellorsville.

In Ulm he made his army execute a daring move. Ulm prepared the victory in Austerlitz, which is usually considered the height of Napoleon career.

Austerlitz is classic Napoleon pwnage.

Austerlitz, for the best victory, outnumbered by about several thousand troops, the coalition with the advantage. Shows how well Napoleon kicks arse. Its those boots of his.

But for his most strategic victory, it would be Ulm. Napoleon completely encircling the Austrians while causing a cavalry diversion in the Black Forest infront of them. The Austrians moved and focused on that point while the French secretly encircled them quickly, before moving in on them on all fronts. The entire Austrian army had to surrender. It still in my opinon is his best victory, not his greatest, but the twilight of his strategic life.

Nope. Napoleon possessed equal - in some accounts even superior numbers at Austerlitz.
According to Ian Castle's Austerlitz 1805, the French had 75,000 troops (plus Davout's corps arriving mid-battle) while the Allies can muster only 73,000.
The traditional estimate of the Allied army was 85,000, but actually due to several reasons only 73,000 was present in the field.

1. French numbers at the battle vary depending on the account; 65,000, 67,000, 73,000, or 75,000 are other figures often present in the literature. The discrepancy arises because about 7,000 men of Davout's III Corps were not at the battle right when it started. Including or not including these troops is a matter of preference (in this article, they will be included as separate from the 67,000 French soldiers originally on the field). David G. Chandler, The Campaigns of Napoleon. p. 416 gives 67,000 (without Davout's III Corps)
2. ^ Allied numbers at the battle vary depending on the account; 73,000, 84,000, or 85,000 are other figures often present in the literature. Andrew Uffindell, Great Generals of the Napoleonic Wars. p. 25 gives 73,000. David G. Chandler, The Campaigns of Napoleon. p. 417 gives 85,400. In Napoleon and Austerlitz (1997), Scott Bowden writes that the traditional number given for the Allies, 85,000, reflects their theoretical strength, and not the true numbers present on the battlefield.