Well, it looks easy. A triumph of a state X in some war against state Y, is usually a tragedy for the state Y :). You have hundreds of examples in human history.

Other topic - a personal triumph of a ruler might be a tragedy for the state ruled by this guy. You have plenty of examples too.

Other topic - a triumph of some ideology might be a tragedy for people in this country which created this ideology (or outside this country).

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

 

 

 

That's about the most spectacular example of triumph and tragedy (for the same side) I can think of, though there have been less famous examples such as the death of Wolfe at Quebec.

 

Of course it should be remembered that every triumph (military at least) is marred by the personal tragedies of those who died in achieving it, even if they are not all Nelsons or Wolfes.

 

 

 

After a civil war against his brother he finally succeded to seize the throne and the throne -litteraly- killed him, when it collapsed.

 

In his later life he wrote a sad autobiography of how he wished he had never done it and had consigned himself to a life of loneliness without human relationships, being pointed at and being a curiosity to all and forever looking over his should for the next assassin. But what's worse having to act like the hardened dispationate killer in public simply to scare people into not challenging him, when the last thing he wanted to do was kill anymore and craved friendship.

 

Musashi's life is also the basis for the whole Hollywood cowboy genre.

 

 

 

Paul, you are right. There is not only war in this world.

So my proposal is next.

 

The triumph - my mother-in-law will have a car accident.

The tragedy - she will drive my Mercedes during this car accident. 

 

In reality Britain's main ware hero was the conservative, authoritarian. aristocratic Duke of Wellington, who became a leading politician and prime minister largely of course because of his reputation.

 

If Nelson had survived there would have been two war heroes, with Nelson the more glamorous and charismatic. And Nelson  was - for his day anyway - no conservative, in fact pretty radical and democratic in his attitude to the people in general.

 

It's interesting to speculate what difference the rivalry of the two would have made to the political history of Britain up till around 1830 or even later.

 

 

Two different people, same political party (Tories). Castlereagh was prime minister but committed suicide in 1822, when he was followed by Lord Liverpool. Wellington was in Liverpool's Cabinet, but when Liverpool died of a stroke, Canning was preferred to Wellington or Peel as successor, and Wellington resigned in protest, only to become prime minister himself a little later.

 

In politics Wellington was an arch-conservative but oddly perhaps his government passed the Roman Catholic emancipation bill.