[thulldud]

Winning battles isn't enough. Hannibal could win battles, but he failed to make strategic use of his victories. Other generals have been considered "losers" in history, but the outcome of their strategic maneuvering tells a different story: Nathanael Greene, for instance.

Think of baseball: base hits are nice, but hits don't win the game. In football, yardage gains are wonderful, but they only win when they reach the end zone. It's not uncommon to post better raw stats than your opponent and still lose the game.

[PirateBeachBum]

Your opinion has validity, but players on losing teams are still recognized for their individual accomplishments.

[sonofron]

yes, you are right. Simply winning battles doesn't win the war, But those victories are damn important. Would the british have kept fighting the american rebels for eight years had they not won any battles? Would the French have jumped in and supported the rebels had saratoga not been won? Winning battles is the next most important thing to winning wars. Winning battles is the way most field generals are measured. Of course other qualities help, like in Washington's case. Washington inspired his men and kept moral up, loss after loss. I believe Washington only won two battles, trenton and yorktown(washington was a great general, but not the greatest general of the revolution).