On a related note, I (re-)discovered that I own a copy of Final Fantasy Tactics today. How do I forget something like that?

I'll see how it stacks up soon enough, I suppose.

In an sRPG your units are unique and go with you.  In a TBS, you make/create new ones.  

In Fire Emblem, Lyn/Kent/Sain all travel with you from map to map.

In Advance Wars, your Infantry and Tanks don't--you make more of them each time.

That's the big distinction between the two to me.

So you would say that Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics are not SRPGs, then, since the majority of your troops are not personalities of their own.

I didn't mention personality.

So the primary distinction is not anything to do with role-playing, but simply carrying units over between missions.

Ah, i was wrong... still there are a few Turn based strategy games where your units do follow you from map to map.  There was this one SNES one that was ruthless because of that.  Because not only did you have to win each map, AND make sure your higher leveled units didn't die, you had to make sure your higher level units were well balanced because otherwise you might not have any Level 5 fighters and you'd be helpless to fend off bomber strikes later on.

Additionally games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms where your officers carry over for an entire campaign... with later versions like 8 having all sorts of role playing and role playing aspects... even allowing you to take on the part of an officer in a country rather then the leader itself.

That's a different role, in a TBS you are a commander with a nameless army that you create anew for each battle.  In an SRPG you are the leader of a large band of adventurers of some kind.  You add new characters, but you don't just create 40 warriors for a battle you use your level 30 warrior that you created and have slowly leveled through different battles.

This is a false distiction. All "SRPGs" are turn-based strategy games, with or without story-telling elements. There has been narrative and consistent characterization in turn-based strategy games since before Dungeons and Dragons even existed.

I didn't say characterization.  Look, here's an easy distinction.  In SRPG's you get and slowly level characters to use in strategic fights.  In TBS you don't, you make a base and create units to fight in said strategic fights.

More or less.  RPGs aren't really about role-playing anymore (except mostly wRPGs which actually let you make decisions) but that's a different discussion all-together.  Overal, games today are much more story-oriented than they used to be.  Now just about every game has a story.  Even some sports games have a story where you take the role of someone.  Advance Wars games have stories where you follow the path of the COs.  

Since we can't use story to differentiate games, we have to use gameplay.  I feel the biggest gameplay difference is that TBS lets you create new units in missions whereas sRPGs let you carry units over.