Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
You always wonder about that
the Greatest Commander of Antiquity?
- Thread starter Samuraistuff03
- Start date
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
Okay, I've read Kalani's article, and I'm convinced that the Indo-Parthians ruling Sakastan were Ardashir's allies by the time of the battle of Hormozdgan. I'm less convinced of his argument that Shapur was born after Hormozdgan. Al-Tabari claims that Shapur fought at Hormozdgan, and although there are stories about Shapur's maternal parentage whereby he is born to an Arsacid princess after Hormozdgan, this may be a myth that seeks to apply more legitimacy to Sasanian rule. The claim that Shapur was hidden away as a child sounds very mythical, and the successor coins, which on one interpretation depict a royal child, need not necessarily depict Shapur, as Kalani acknowledges. Perhaps Shapur really was born after Hormozdgan, but that would make him a very youthful king indeed during his early successes against Hatra, the Caspian rebellions and Gordian, and it also means he died in his forties. I suppose this is all possible.
How you read so fast? I had a hard time reading that article because it was kinda fragmentary. but I agree regarding mystical parts. although I believe Shapur was the second son or third son. because usually the name of first born son would be either the name of father or grand father. Shapur was Ardashirs brother, so that makes him third in line of naming. his first born was possibly the Ardashir of Kerman Shah. since Kerman was among first regions which Ardashir captured, and of course he would give that to the eldest son.
Regarding successor coins, a new reading was done in about 2016 I believe. now it's quite certain that the person on the coins is Ardashir The Sakan Shah.
What did you think about the article regarding India?
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
Haha yeah it's a fragmentary article. Definitely not an easy read. His argument that, if the coin is Abursam, then the story of Shapur being hidden away is real, also didn't convince me, since that element of the story might essentially be an aetiological myth designed to explain why Abursam appeared on coins, not the genuine reason.
Interesting re. the Sakanshah. Kalani notes that Alram also argued that the person on the successor coins was Ardashir the Sakanshah.
The India article was a much simpler read haha. And I'm fairly convinced by it. The coin is an interesting bit of potential evidence, and although it's risky placing so much importance on a single coin, it does correspond to Firishta's story and also the passage you mentioned within the Tarikh of Sistan.
Joined Aug 2014
1,167 Posts | 831+
Why do you want to know?
Last edited:
I agree. Fine margins are often all that separates success from failure.
Joined Aug 2014
1,167 Posts | 831+
Why do you want to know?
Being the shameless partisan that I am, my vote goes to P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus! That being said, I think that the man who revolutionized Roman tactical doctrine and thereby endowed his legions with an unprecedented level of flexibility, laid low the Barcid Empire in Spain and decisively defeated the great Hannibal himself is more than worthy of the accolade!
Joined Mar 2017
3,436 Posts | 4,984+
Rome
I'm legally obliged to point out that Tiberius hasn't been mentioned yet
Joined Aug 2021
1,093 Posts | 227+
Italy
Last edited:
I hope not to change topic,but i had read the plans of Marc Anthony and looks like that he formuled a Plan that could had worked to take the East in Roman influence if he didn't trigger war against Octavian..in my Two cents,he wanted make bond on foreign states (Armenia,media,parthia,egypt for example) to bring stability on Roman sides through indirect rules,and i think the Plan sound goods.. not the greatest general of antinquity,but i think that he could be put in the list of some republican heroes.. moreover,he almost won Battle of mutina,and we could wonder what could happened if Octavian fullfy his promise to give him two legions that could be used to protect the baggage trainYou always wonder about that
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
Last edited:
The presence of the Suren clan as major landowners in Sakastan is interesting to me, because I note that Sukhra, generally considered to be a member of the Karin clan, was governor of Sakastan (al-Tabari 877, 878; Ferdowsi, Shahnamah 39.2). I'd like to read the passage of al-Tabari that specifically associates the Suren with Sakastan, but the reference provided by Zalani was to an edition that I can't access.
Relatedly, Kalani's suggestion that the Surens of Sakastan might have favoured Bahram III over Narseh, on the grounds that Bahram III had been the governor of Sakastan, is complicated by the fact that Narseh had also once held the same position.
I simply went with who both Scipio and Hannibal said was the greatest:
www.livius.org
[10]" It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia."
To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus," because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible," he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these."
Appian, The Syrian Wars 2 - Livius
[10]" It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia."
To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus," because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible," he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these."
That passage is not in Sassanid part of the book but rather in reign of Gashtasp. you should be able to find it in Kiyanid era.
Based on what I sent you in private message is possible that Suren was no longer located at Sakestan. or the governmental office was different with feudalic influence/land owners. it is also possible that Tabari report is simply false regarding Sukhra location. I think I have read something about this in past but I don't remember the details.
Surens are also among supporters of Narseh in his inscription. I generally just believe he has done good solid work in gathering evidence. but horrible work on making conclusions.
Joined Aug 2021
1,093 Posts | 227+
Italy
Last edited:
Basically later Surens under Mihr Narse were located in region of Pars.
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
Yeah, I suspected the former possibilities may be the case. I'm less convinced that Tabari is incorrect re. Sukhra, as he himself is reporting the same claim in two different versions of Peroz's Hephthalite war, and Ferdowsi reports similar, claiming that Sukhra governed Zabulistan, Kabulistan, Ghamin and Bust. It would also make sense that Sukhra was based in Sakastan, since it's apparent from coin evidence that Khorasan temporarily fell to Khushnawar, and I recall that there is evidence that Arachosia fell as well. Sakastan would be the next line of defense between those two regions.
Joined Oct 2018
15,357 Posts | 16,546+
Sydney
I think it was this. some scholars stated that Sassanid didn't control these areas at the time for Sukhra to held them.
Joined Feb 2021
1,122 Posts | 1,700+
Italy
Han Xin seems very very impressive. Bai Qi too. I read on Wikipedia that in the historical records there is not a single defeat ever associated with Bai Qi. I also read that his surname was "the butcher" and I was quite perplexed by the huge numbers of people he supposedly killed (almost 1 million). How is that even possible? Especially the brutal event that followed the battle of Changping...
@Samuraistuff03 do you happen to know more about him? Based on what I read on Wikipedia alone I would have to rank him higher that Cao Cao (that had some setbacks). Do you also where I can read more about him (any articles/book)? Thank you
@Samuraistuff03 do you happen to know more about him? Based on what I read on Wikipedia alone I would have to rank him higher that Cao Cao (that had some setbacks). Do you also where I can read more about him (any articles/book)? Thank you
Joined Aug 2021
15,042 Posts | 10,411+
Italia
Numbers in Chinese history are always exagerated. It's impossible that he killed so many, unless you include indirect causes like famines and epidemies in his kill count.Han Xin seems very very impressive. Bai Qi too. I read on Wikipedia that in the historical records there is not a single defeat ever associated with Bai Qi. I also read that his surname was "the butcher" and I was quite perplexed by the huge numbers of people he supposedly killed (almost 1 million). How is that even possible? Especially the brutal event that followed the battle of Changping...
@Samuraistuff03 do you happen to know more about him? Based on what I read on Wikipedia alone I would have to rank him higher that Cao Cao (that had some setbacks). Do you also where I can read more about him (any articles/book)? Thank you
Joined May 2023
7,147 Posts | 2,691+
-
great to see you here @Pima !Han Xin seems very very impressive. Bai Qi too. I read on Wikipedia that in the historical records there is not a single defeat ever associated with Bai Qi. I also read that his surname was "the butcher" and I was quite perplexed by the huge numbers of people he supposedly killed (almost 1 million). How is that even possible? Especially the brutal event that followed the battle of Changping...
@Samuraistuff03 do you happen to know more about him? Based on what I read on Wikipedia alone I would have to rank him higher that Cao Cao (that had some setbacks). Do you also where I can read more about him (any articles/book)? Thank you
Bai Qi was brilliant , but I wouldn't put him above the late Han duo of Sun Ce and Cao Cao, simply because the last 2 founded famous kingdoms despite there being loads of competition and the odds being stacked against them
That conversation is, more likely than not, apocryphal. Unless i am wrong neither Polybius or Livy mention it and Appian was writing many centuries later.I simply went with who both Scipio and Hannibal said was the greatest:
Appian, The Syrian Wars 2 - Livius
[10]" It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia."
To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus," because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible," he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these."
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-