Plato, Laws 639b

τὴν ναυτικὴν ἔχῃ ἐπιστήμην μόνον, ἄντʼ οὖν ναυτιᾷ ἄντε μή, ἢ πῶς ἂν λέγοιμεν; οὐδαμῶς, ἄν γε πρὸς τῇ τέχνῃ ἔχῃ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος ὃ λέγεις. τί δʼ ἄρχων στρατοπέδων; ἆρʼ ἐὰν τὴν πολεμικὴν ἔχῃ ἐπιστήμην, ἱκανὸς ἄρχειν, κἂν δειλὸς ὢν ἐν τοῖς δεινοῖς ὑπὸ μέθης τοῦ φόβου ναυτιᾷ; καὶ πῶς; ἂν δὲ αὖ μήτε ἔχῃ τὴν τέχνην δειλός τε ᾖ; παντάπασίν τινα πονηρὸν λέγεις, καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἀνδρῶν ἄρχοντα ἀλλά τινων σφόδρα γυναικῶν.

Do we call the man who possesses only nautical science, whether or not he suffers from sea-sickness, a good commander on a ship—or what? By no means good, if along with his skill he suffers in the way you say. And how about the army commander? Is a man fit for command, provided that he has military science, even though he be a coward and sea-sick with a kind of tipsy terror when danger comes? Certainly not. And suppose he has no military skill, besides being a coward? You are describing an utterly worthless fellow, not a commander of men at all, but of the most womanish of women.