Many great generals avoid battle, because their goal is to prevail in the war - they seek strategic rather than tactical victories. Roman general Fabius, for example, led Hannibal on a dance around Italy (and away from Rome) but every time Hannibal got close Fabian would march his army into the hills, where Hannibal's superweapons (war elephants) were useless.
This greatly irritated Fabian's compatriot, Varro. When he was given command of Rome's legions he marched boldly into battle, with 80,00 men. 70,000 were slaughtered and most of the rest taken prisoner.
Man this thing needs a sortable data table rather than a visualization than seems to dislike iPads. And I thought I read once that to win like napoleon you needed to face napoleon’s opponents. He had a different combat system and elements of modern armies in a pre modern world. Freddie the great had this as well, facing some less than capable opponents.
And is this tactics or more? Others had operational sense that didn’t lead to battles. For example, somebody skilled at maneuver warfare might gain lots of territory via forcing their opponent to retreat rather than face a disadvantageous battle. This might yield no data?
Commenters excoriate the methadology. First thing I checked was for comparisons with Aleksandr Suvarov, who "never lost a single battle he commanded."¹ Glaringly absent from the exposition.
This greatly irritated Fabian's compatriot, Varro. When he was given command of Rome's legions he marched boldly into battle, with 80,00 men. 70,000 were slaughtered and most of the rest taken prisoner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae