Mulceber,

Plutarch, while a historian, was also very much a Roman propagandist for the Roman Empire, of who Caesar was the founding father. One must be aware of this when they read anything he writes. A lot of what he has written is either outright propaganda, or of doubtful historical accuracy. He had a tendency to skew facts to make them fit.

I totally agree with you on the point that he was a slightly above average tactician. Now as for strategy, to be honest the great masters of strategy are rarely remembered today as great generals, with the notable exceptions of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli. To me one of the greatest people in history at strategic warfare was William Pitt, but you rarely hear of him mentioned in the same breath as for example Napoleon. As for Hannibal not knowing how to use a victory, that is incredibly debatable in my opinion. I personally think Hannibal never truly had the opportunity to really exploit a victory. He did what he could with what he had, but with zero support, and being back-stabbed from rival factions in Carthage, he wasnt able to really do too much. Had he gained reinforcements from Hasdrubal, the story might have ended a bit differently. However I digress a bit here, and yes Caesar was a good strategist, but can you really say he was a master strategist? No.