ITT: Great tactics but awful strategy, and vice versa

>>3283754

You're going to have to elaborate on this.

Hannibal's strategy wasn't all that bad. He just kind of had shit luck.

If his opponent was anyone but the Romans with their ridiculous stubbornness, they would have capitulated to a peace deal after Cannae.

Even after that, if Hasdruba's reinforcements had reached him, Hannibal would have been in excellent position to siege Rome. Likewise if the Carthaginian reinforcements by sea had reached him and not shipwrecked on Sardinia.

File: Charles_XII_1706.jpg (149KB, 546x680px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 546x680px

>>3283754
Charles XII of Sweden

Great at fighting wars, not so good at realizing when it was time to stop fighting them.

Nappy in later years.

>>3283761
>Hannibal's strategy wasn't all that bad
Not OP, but it was pretty stupid. It wasn't all THAT long ago from the first punic war, and Rome took horrendous casualties in all those fleets they lost in storms and the naval reverses they held. That didn't shake their alliances nor force them to the table.

>Even after that, if Hasdruba's reinforcements had reached him, Hannibal would have been in excellent position to siege Rome.
Don't be an idiot. Metaurus was almost a decade after Cannae, Rome had new armies, was attacking on several fronts, and most importantly; even if those armies had linked, Hannibal still has no supply train or regular shipments. He's stuck living off the land. He can't starve out Rome, and he likely can't stick in the vicinity long enough to construct engines and reduce the walls.

>Likewise if the Carthaginian reinforcements by sea had reached him and not shipwrecked on Sardinia.
Same thing here. It doesn't do you a lick of good to have a bunch of troops if you can't keep them together in one place for long enough.

>>3283754
napoleon is the eternal answer. Tactical monster that absolutely could not into diplomacy or the longterm health of his nation. Stranded his men in egypt and russia because his plans were foolhardy and relied on tactical prowess achieving impossible results. This leads to incredible tactical victories but its basically inevitable that you'll be fucked if you stretch yourself past what you can even strategically hold or use. The successful conquests he did have in Europe were ruined by his heavy-handed treatment of the conquered, which ruined France's reputation as liberators. His lack of strategic foresight to let his logistics to fall behind his wild expectations for tactical success. We see this fetishization of tactical prowess over proper logistics in Egypt, Russia, and finally Waterloo. He never stood a chance logistically or strategically, but he was still clinging to some sort of tactically brilliant comeback, like one good battle could fix the damage that a decade of Emperor Napoleon wrought on France's reputation with their neighbors. He's lucky Talleyrand was there to pick up the pieces after the war and salvage their diplomatic position. Somebody in that country had to think strategically.

>>3283755
I assume OP means generals who were good at winning battles/short term command but were terrible at managing fronts or wars/long term command.

>>3283814
Talleyrand was underrated
he could probably outshine Bismarck if only not for the position that France was at that time
France lost a war and you expect her to lose most of her conquest and get Versaille'd like in WW1 but no he played the major powers against one another and then the minor powers against the major and had the gall to insult the victors