Belisarius had several very good campaigns,but u name a single outstanding campaign.As for winning without fighting that counts as a diplomatic triumph and nothing to do with military skill as a commander.He often did suffer bad defeats too. Was also badly surprised at ad decimum.
Also u seem to not know too much about napoleon.
The 1806 jena campaign[called the original blitzkreig,destruction of prussia's army in 2 weeks]
1807 campaign against russia and prussia in poland.
1809 campaign against spain first.Then austria.
His major disaster was the russian campaign.
After that he fought brilliantly severely outnumbered with young boys and a few veterans in 1813 in germany and 1814 in farnce.Ever heard of six days campaign.
In waterloo campaign he outmanuevred both blucher and wellington but lost the battle.
So i disagree with your assumption he 'forgot' campaigning.
OK, OK, I have no intention of getting into a spat about a dead military commander.
I happen to be one of those folks who think Napoleon should be buried in the ground, along with other conquering "heroes" who cost the lives of so many people. I happen to think Alexander "the Great" was a tyrannical egomaniac. And Frederick "the Great" of Prussia started a huge war by trying to steal a province from Austria. A huge long-term problem with the east part of Germany was the development of Prussian militarism after the Thirty Years War. This would later become a problem for all of Germany and it would not become totally eradicated until 1945. I suppose the only reason why we don't refer to Herr Schicklegruber as "Hitler the Great" is because he lost.
As you are the OP person I'll abide by your wishes and select only one Belisarius campaign. A bit of background. Approximately 540 CE the Persian king Chosroes invaded Byzantine territory and sacked Antioch. He then returned to Persia and prepared to invade again, but with a much larger army, and his destination was Jerusalem, the next most affluent city since Antioch had been plundered. With such a large army he couldn't cross the desert again, but had to march along a route up the Euphrates and into Syria where he would then turn and proceed south. Justinian sent Belisarius to deal with the situation. Belisarius' forces were about one-tenth or even one-twentieth the size of the invading army.
Belisarius established his camp near where Chosroes would have to turn south. He then spread his best troops along Chosroes' flank to make it appear as though he had a very large and capable army. These troops conducted numerous maneuvers to make it seem there were many more than met the eye. A final cavalry demonstration persuaded Chosroes that to proceed farther was too much of a risk, and he took his army and returned to Persia.
What a phenomenal feat by the shrewd Belisarius. He defended the local people he was sent to protect from a huge invading army intending to kill and plunder them, and he did it without losing a single soldier in combat. I think it may be the most remarkable military campaign in history.
How many times in history have a people faced a threatening invasion (and guess how much it must have cost $ to Chosroes to move that big army over such a long distance) and defeated the invader without loss of life or destruction of property?
-----------------
Just because a campaign doesn't end in a battle doesn't mean it's not a military campaign. Clausewitz was wrong (and he admitted he hadn't reached a conclusion because he advised that all his papers be burnt on his death.) Instead, his papers were published and became a basis for standard European military doctrine. Such was very evident during the blood-soaked WW I battles and campaigns. Clausewitz's aborted conclusion was that the goal of a military campaign was to seek battle and defeat the enemy on the battlefield.
But the best military commanders know the worst thing is to risk a direct confrontation. They'll do anything to outmaneuver the enemy and will only seek battle when that enemy is in an untenable position. Hannibal once marched thru a swamp to avoid having a direct confrontation with a Roman army, even though he'd been defeating them consistently. Current US military strategy is based on his Canae battle. In a conventional war, the US will seek to destroy everything possible in the rears areas (especially electronic communications) before committing ground troops to an attack, and then that attack will be directed at the flanks rather than be direct.
This is what Nap forgot after 1805. Rather than his Italian or Austerlitz campaigns, he began seeking direct, frontal battle.
------------------
I'll list that bloodless campaign by Belisarius as #1. #2 is Sherman's march to the Sea.
