The Greatest Commander in Antiquity

Themistocles had a nice victory during the Spartan-Persian War and all...
and Hannibal was uber (although he was defeated by Scipio Africanus)...
but, from the options, the obvious winner is definitely Alexander the Great.
He singlehandedly created one of the best empires in history, mastered propaganda (he didn't resemble in any way those statues which depict him), and tamed Bucephalus. The numerous "Alexandria"s in the world are a reminder of his epicness.

But I think it was a mistake to leave off Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, and all the other great Asian commanders.
The early American and African ones should also have been included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesterus

Genghis Khan takes the cake


you are too focused on classical greek and roman commanders, you need to turn your short sighted spectacles towards the splendors of Asia

Cao Cao rivaled your Caesar in every since of the word

---

We've already had this discussion over and over. Genghis Khan was no doubt a good tactian, but not the best.

EDIT: The thread says Antiquity, not early American history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Dylan

We've already had this discussion over and over. Genghis Khan was no doubt a good tactian, but not the best.

EDIT: The thread says Antiquity, not early American history.

---

Ghengis Khan and Cao Cao are part of Asian history, not American history. I'm assuming that was just an honest slip of the fingers though.
(EDIT: I've been told the American history line was directed towards Baltezar, not Nesterus. In that case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.)

Though yes, I would agree that Antiquity, although alternatively meaning ancientness in general, was intended by Conrad to mean specifically Classical Mediterranean civilizations.
EDIT: Perhaps someone else could create a thread for commanders of any ancient (definition of ancient variable) civilization or period.

Let's rescue the term 'antiquity' instead. My vote goes for Sun Tzu, a man much more obviously connected to good generalship than the bulk of the provided names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

Let's rescue the term 'antiquity' instead. My vote goes for Sun Tzu, a man much more obviously connected to good generalship than the bulk of the provided names.

---

... By what definition do you provide this answer?

Perhaps the English I have chosen in this context is... Inaccurate, so I appologize if the meaning is not what I intend it to be.

Sun Tzu is commonly accredited in the average mans' mind as writing the piece The Art of War. I say commonly accredited because it is a matter of accademic debate whether or not the man either existed, or wrote the book.

If you wish to deviate from the list, I would submit Zhuge Liang as being a more accomplished stratigist then Sun Tzu.

Not only his his existance not of doubt to the accademic community. His accomplishments are well known in the majority of China. Infact, to many, his name surname in addtion, has become synonymous with tactics or strategy (depending upon the word).

~John

I wasn't aware we had to post birth certificates to be able to provide opinions. Can you prove he didn't exist? Also, Conrad's favorite, Napoleon, was a huge Sun Tzu fan, are you suggesting Napoleon was an average man making an error of association? Are you suggesting we need to remove Sun Tzu from Conrad's custom user title? Surely not! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

I wasn't aware we had to post birth certificates to be able to provide opinions. Can you prove he didn't exist? Also, Conrad's favorite, Napoleon, was a huge Sun Tzu fan, are you suggesting Napoleon was an average man making an error of association?

---

There is difference between providing birth certificates and providing factual information that a person existed. To a degree of course.

One can provide the opinion that the Earth is Flat, or that all humans have an invisible third head/ or a third hand invisible to all but themselves. However, to add weight or credence to an opinion, one should beable to provide atleast one accademic source in support.

My point was not to debate the merit of his exhistance; that is best debated between parties in a different thread, or through private messages, so as to not derail this thread. Merely to point out the debate surrounding a candidate for best general.

He was a man in admiration of The Art of War, not necessarily Sun Tzu. It is true that he read a French Translation of The Art of War, I am not denying that.

~John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Adams

One can provide the opinion that the Earth is Flat, or that all humans have an invisible third head/ or a third hand invisible to all but themselves. However, to add weight or credence to an opinion, one should beable to provide atleast one accademic source in support.

My point was not to debate the merit of his exhistance; that is best debated between parties in a different thread, or through private messages, so as to not derail this thread. Merely to point out the debate surrounding a candidate for best general.

---

Your counterargument doesn't work. That's partly because most humans don't have two heads, and partly because there is a difference between a debate over something and a ludicrous assertion that something is true when it is not.

I am pleased that you acknowledge a lack of Asian generals in the voting selection however. It does seem that a few people posting in this thread looked to Asia when thinking of good generalship.

I never like to get involved in these things.

On the other hand... "Antiquity", defined classically, excludes most of Asia.

Sun Tzu's existence is demonstrated largely by anecdotal evidence, his employer's identity is indeterminate, and the most likely candidate for such was overrun at the end of the generally accepted dates Sun Tzu's perhaps mythic career. While the book attributed to him is excellent, even sublime, I would suggest that he ought not be on a list of great commanders with so little evidence to back up his existence.

Genghiz Khan is, of course, too late for antiquity in any sense. Great as a commander... meh; successful, certainly, but his success is (in my opinion) attributed to his followers rather than his ability.

But enough negatives. While normally I'd go with Alexander, his successes ended with his death; the same cannot be said of Africanus. Go Scipio!

Well, anything 'defined classically' where 'classically' means 'Greece and Rome' would exclude much of Asia. But antiquity is a noun of age, not of place.