Quote Originally Posted by General_Sun
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no brilliant strategies. All strategies are made BEFORE the battle. The supply of your men, their pre battle morale, their equipment, their training. etc. All those things matter a lot more than battlefield tatics. All you have to do is to apply standard military doctrine and the thing unfolds...

Then of course there's dumb luck...
Going by what you just said, you could simply march at an enemy with a group of well supplied, well trained men with high morale and expect to win. This is nonsense. Grand strategy, such as the movement of armies, conducting a battlefront properly, and the logistics of supplies and properly trained men are only half the battle.
You must have a grasp of general field combat tactics or you are doomed to be crushed by a superior general who will use troops of inferior quality in a vastly superior manner. Generalship isn't like a game, it's not a case of screaming at men to go here and there and kill this or that. It's about choosing the right men for the right jobs, making sure your people know what is expected of them and devising a plan they can all follow.

Good example? Hannibal. With inferior numbers and in general, lower quality men, crushed the Romans utterly many times on their own lands. He was a superior tactical general. He was actually rather crap at grand strategy, he just kept on winning the battles he ended up in, even if he was laughably unable to actually conduct the campaigns grand strategy with any success.