The Greatest Commander in Antiquity

[Gnerphk]

Oh, I'd agree grammatically, Boleslav. In truth, the debate seems more one of the splitting of hairs than as a matter of substance; although several Asian military leaders might qualify for a similar date-oriented list (especially some from Siam), a rival for Africanus, Caesar, Alexander, or even Pompey would be difficult to find. It's more a matter of scope than even one of demonstrated ability, in my opinion; "excellence" and "greatness" are far different things.

[Boleslav]

a rival for Africanus, Caesar, Alexander, or even Pompey would be difficult to find. It's more a matter of scope than even one of demonstrated ability, in my opinion; "excellence" and "greatness" are far different things.

Would you submit that at least one Asian commander could be on that list?

[Gnerphk]

Mh... Were we to agree that "Antiquity" could be defined to include Asia during a similar period in history, then certainly. Sun Bin is one that comes immediately to mind, and he had a few rivals in fame and ability in that period of Chinese history (known as the "Warring States"). As well, Qin Shi Huangdi and Liu Bang were notable in the scope of their conquests and influence -- though not as much for their abilities.

There are a handful of Japanese, Korean, and Thai figures that might be argued as candidates for similar lists; however, most are either mythic figures (like Sun Tzu) or lived outside the time period established. Of course, that bracket when referring to Asia is arbitrary and virtually meaningless; the early leaders of the Sukhothai Kingdom, for instance, had technology not far advanced from that of Rome at its peak. That they fought a thousand years after Rome was ash and ruin is meaningless considering the distance involved.

There are some simple arguments that stand against this practice.

The first is that of the pure historian, who would argue that even the existence of Sun Bin is debatable given the lack of substantial historic evidence; in part, this can be traced to the Imperial tradition of eliminating all major works belonging to previous dynasties (and in some cases even preceding reigns) in the later Chinese empires.

As well, there's the argument that I presented earlier; even Sun Bin was a minor figure compared to Caesar, Alexander, or Africanus -- specifically, when discussing scope of influence, an essential aspect of "greatness". Chinese generals rarely became rulers.

One further item of note is the simple inapplicability of similar time divisions, as mentioned above. "Antiquity" in China could be said to have continued through to the Yuan conquest, though the An Shi Rebellion in the 8th Century is a more reasonable turning point, and the dissolution of the Han in 220AD might even be better... save that little reliable history survives from that time.

And that's just China; Asia is far larger than a single empire, no matter how large, powerful, or influential. In it can be found the majority of Alexander's empire, all of India and Japan, and the homes of many other peoples with long and glorious traditions.

Having said all this... no, none of these really belong on the list. Sun Bin was a lesser leader and not terribly successful; Qin, while influential in scope, was less effective even than Alexander; Liu Bang was less remarkable than Qin.

But then, I'd argue that Pyrrhus doesn't really belong here; neither does Epaminondas of Thebes or Miltiades. And where is Cincinnattus? But now I really am splitting hairs.

As with history in general, no poll is perfect. And with that, I think I can safely let the subject rest.


==================

EDIT: For the Pyrrhus Debate, please see the other thread on "Worst Generals". Conrad and Gnerphk wrestling this weighty question and not eschewing sesquipedalianism therein.