AI: Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch Compared: Ancient Greek Historians (Part III, Plutarch: “The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans”)

Plutarch

2nd-century bust from Delphi sometimes identified as Plutarch

(Wiki Image By Zde – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56233390) 

Plutarch Quotes

Plutarch’s writings, particularly the Parallel Lives and the Moralia, are filled with insightful observations on character, morality, leadership, education, and human nature. Here are some well-known quotes attributed to Plutarch:

1. On Character and Biography:
   • “For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands fall…” (From the introduction to the Life of Alexander in Parallel Lives – explaining his focus on character over mere events).
2. On Education and the Mind:
   • “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” (This quote perfectly captures his philosophy of education, emphasizing active engagement over passive reception. Found in Moralia: On Listening to Lectures).
3. On Character and Habits:
   • “Character is simply habit long continued.” (While the exact phrasing is debated, this sentiment reflects Plutarch’s emphasis on how repeated actions shape who we are.)
4. On Adversity and Learning from Mistakes:
   • “To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.” (From the Life of Fabius Maximus in Parallel Lives).
5. On Politics and Society:
   • “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” (From the Life of Tiberius Gracchus in Parallel Lives).
6. On Listening and Learning:
   • “Know how to listen, and you will profit even from those who talk badly.” (From Moralia: On Listening to Lectures).
7. On Friendship and Flattery:
   • “I don’t need a friend who changes when I change and who nods when I nod; my shadow does that much better.” (From Moralia: How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend).
8. On Inner vs. Outer Reality:
   • “What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.” (Reflects his Platonist leanings and focus on internal virtue).
9. On Art and Poetry:
   • “Painting is silent poetry, and poetry is painting that speaks.” (Plutarch attributes this idea to Simonides of Ceos in Moralia: How the Young Man Should Study Poetry).
10. On Rest and Leisure:
    • “Rest is the sweet sauce of labour.” (From Moralia).

These quotes reflect Plutarch’s enduring focus on moral philosophy, the importance of character development, and the lessons that can be learned from studying the lives of influential individuals.

 

Plutarch YouTube Video

Plutarch: Greek Philosopher

Why Study Plutarch with Judith Mossman

 

Plutarch History

 Okay, let’s break down Plutarch and his relationship with history.

Plutarch (full name likely Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, c. 46 CE – after 119 CE) was a prominent Greek writer, biographer, essayist, and philosopher who lived during the Roman Empire. While we often think of him in relation to history, it’s more accurate to call him a biographer and moralist who used historical figures as his subjects.  

His most famous work, and the one most relevant to “history,” is:

1. Parallel Lives (or Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans):  
   • Concept: This is a series of biographies of famous Greek and Roman individuals, arranged in pairs. Each pair typically consists of one Greek and one Roman figure chosen because Plutarch perceived similarities in their characters, careers, or fortunes. Examples include Alexander the Great paired with Julius Caesar, or Demosthenes with Cicero.
   • Purpose: Plutarch’s primary goal was not to write a comprehensive historical account in the modern sense. Instead, he aimed to explore character and morality. He used the lives of these great men as case studies to illustrate virtues and vices, hoping to provide moral instruction and inspiration to his readers. He explicitly states in the introduction to his Life of Alexander, “For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands fall.”  
   • Historical Value: Despite his focus on character, the Lives are an invaluable historical source. Plutarch drew upon numerous earlier historical accounts, many of which are now lost. His work provides detailed accounts of events, political situations, social customs, and the personalities of key figures in Greek and Roman history.  
   • Structure: Most pairs follow a short comparison (synkrisis), explicitly drawing parallels and contrasts between the two figures.  
   • Influence: The Parallel Lives have profoundly impacted Western history, shaping perceptions of classical antiquity. They were a significant source for Shakespeare (e.g., Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus), inspired figures during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and continue to be read today.  
2. Moralia (Moral Essays):
   • Content: This is a comprehensive, eclectic collection of over 70 essays, dialogues, and treatises on various subjects, including ethics, religion, philosophy (particularly Platonism), politics, literature, education, and natural history.  
   • Historical Relevance: Although not strictly “history” books, several essays within the Moralia contain valuable historical information, anecdotes, discussions of customs (such as “Roman Questions” and “Greek Questions”), or philosophical reflections on historical events or figures. They provide insight into the intellectual and cultural milieu of Plutarch’s time.  

Plutarch’s Approach:

• Focus on Character: As mentioned, his primary interest was in revealing the moral character of his subjects.  
• Use of Sources: He utilized a wide range of sources, but was not always critical in the manner modern historians are. He sometimes included anecdotes and details more for their illustrative power regarding character than for their verifiable historical accuracy.  
• Moralistic Tone: His writing often carries an overt moral lesson.  
• Greco-Roman Perspective: As a Greek writer under Roman rule who became a Roman citizen, he navigated both cultures, often seeking parallels and demonstrating a deep respect for both traditions while also showing an evident pride in his Greek heritage.  

In summary, while Plutarch wrote extensively about historical figures and events, his primary lens was biographical and ethical rather than purely historical investigation. His Parallel Lives remain a cornerstone for understanding ancient personalities and contain a wealth of historical information, even if read with an awareness of his specific aims and methods.

 

Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Contents. Table

Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, also known as the Parallel Lives, typically presents biographies in pairs, one of a Greek and one of a Roman, followed by a comparison between the two. However, some editions list them sequentially and include the comparisons within the main body or at the end of each pair. There are also a few unpaired lives.

Here is a general overview of the contents, reflecting the paired structure:

Greek Lives	Roman Lives	Comparisons (where applicable)
Theseus	Romulus	Comparison of Romulus with Theseus
Lycurgus	Numa Pompilius	Comparison of Numa with Lycurgus
Solon	Publicola	Comparison of Publicola with Solon
Themistocles	Camillus	Comparison not extant in surviving texts
Pericles	Fabius Maximus	Comparison of Pericles with Fabius
Alcibiades	Coriolanus	Comparison of Alcibiades with Coriolanus
Timoleon	Aemilius Paulus	Comparison of Timoleon with Aemilius Paulus
Pelopidas	Marcellus	Comparison of Pelopidas with Marcellus
Aristides	Marcus Cato (the Elder)	Comparison of Aristides with Marcus Cato
Philopoemen	Titus Flamininus	Comparison of Philopoemen with Flamininus
Pyrrhus	Gaius Marius	Comparison not extant in surviving texts
Lysander	Sulla	Comparison of Lysander with Sulla
Cimon	Lucullus	Comparison of Cimon with Lucullus
Nicias	Marcus Crassus	Comparison of Nicias with Crassus
Eumenes	Sertorius	Comparison of Eumenes with Sertorius
Agesilaus II	Pompey	Comparison of Agesilaus with Pompey
Alexander the Great	Julius Caesar	Comparison not extant in surviving texts
Phocion	Cato the Younger	Comparison not extant in surviving texts
Agis IV and Cleomenes III	Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus	Comparison of Agis and Cleomenes with the Gracchi
Demosthenes	Cicero	Comparison of Demosthenes with Cicero
Demetrius Poliorcetes	Mark Antony	Comparison of Demetrius with Antony
Dion	Marcus Junius Brutus	Comparison of Dion with Brutus

Export to Sheets

 

Unpaired Lives (often included in some editions):

• Aratus
• Artaxerxes II
• Galba
• Otho

Note: The order of these lives might vary across different editions. Some editions include an introduction by the translator or editor, indices, and other supplementary material.

It is best to consult the book itself or its online listing to obtain the precise table of contents for a specific edition.

 

Plutarch: Theseus and Romulus

Theseus Pictures

Romulus Pictures

 

Theseus and Romulus YouTube Video

The Full Story of Theseus – Greek Mythology Stories in Comics …

The Founding of Rome: The Story of Romulus and Remus in …

 

Plutarch: Life of Theseus and Life of Romulus

Plutarch’s Lives of Theseus and Romulus are two of the most famous biographies within his larger work, Parallel Lives. In this collection, Plutarch paired notable Greek and Roman figures, examining their lives and characters to draw moral lessons and explore similarities and differences between their paths and achievements. Theseus, a legendary founder-hero of Athens, is paired with Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome.

Here’s a glimpse into each of these biographies and the comparison Plutarch draws between them:

Life of Theseus:

• Plutarch recounts the mythical birth and upbringing of Theseus, son of a mortal woman, Aethra, and the god Poseidon (or King Aegeus of Athens, depending on the version).  
• He details Theseus’s journey from Troezen to Athens, during which he famously encounters and defeats various monstrous figures and bandits, such as Sinis, Sciron, and Procrustes, thus clearing the land for safer travel.
• The biography covers Theseus’s arrival in Athens, his recognition by his father Aegeus, and his confrontation with the Minotaur in Crete, where he famously slays the beast with the help of Ariadne.
• Plutarch discusses Theseus’s role in the unification of Attica, the abduction of Helen (which leads to the Trojan War), his friendship with Pirithous, and his eventual tragic end on the island of Scyros.
• Throughout the narrative, Plutarch explores Theseus’s courage, strength, wisdom, and role as a benefactor and civilizer. He also touches upon his flaws, such as his impulsiveness and involvement in the abduction of women.

Life of Romulus:

• Plutarch narrates the legendary origins of Romulus and his twin brother Remus, born to Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin, and supposedly the god Mars.  
• He recounts their abandonment, their miraculous survival being suckled by a she-wolf, and their eventual discovery and upbringing by the shepherd Faustulus and his wife Acca Larentia.
• The biography details their youthful exploits, the conflict with Amulius (the usurper of their grandfather Numitor’s throne), and their decision to found a new city.
• Plutarch famously recounts the fratricidal dispute between Romulus and Remus over the location and naming of the city, which culminates in Romulus killing his brother and establishing Rome.  
• He discusses Romulus’s actions in populating the new city, including the abduction of the Sabine women, the establishment of Roman institutions, and his military successes.  
• The biography concludes with Romulus’s mysterious disappearance, with some accounts claiming he was taken up to the gods. Plutarch examines Romulus’s ambition, military prowess, and role as the founder and first king of Rome.  

Comparison of Theseus and Romulus:

Following the two biographies, Plutarch provides a direct comparison of Theseus and Romulus, highlighting both their similarities and differences:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both were of uncertain or semi-divine parentage, possessed great strength and courage, founded major cities (Athens and Rome), resorted to the abduction of women to populate their towns, and faced domestic troubles and unpopularity towards the end of their lives. He sees them both as having a natural inclination towards leadership.  
• Differences: Plutarch contrasts their motivations and methods. Theseus is portrayed as acting out of a sense of justice and a desire to rid the world of evildoers. At the same time, Romulus’s actions are often driven by necessity and ambition. Theseus’s unification of Attica is seen as more gradual and consensual than Romulus’s more forceful establishment of Rome. Plutarch also discusses the differing circumstances of their divine connections and their relationships with their families. He generally finds Theseus more virtuous in his initial actions, while acknowledging Romulus’s significant achievements in establishing Rome.  

Through these biographies and their comparison, Plutarch aims to provide moral examples for his readers, exploring the complexities of leadership, virtue, and the founding of great societies. He delves into the legendary narratives, attempting to discern historical truth while also acknowledging the power and influence of myth in shaping the identities of these iconic figures and their respective cities.

 

Plutarch: Theseus and Romulus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Theseus and Romulus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format:

Feature	Theseus (Athens)	Romulus (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Origins & Motivation	Royal/Divine (Aegeus/Poseidon); Chose heroism voluntarily.	Divine (Mars?); Acted out of necessity (escape servitude/danger) initially.	Theseus’s voluntary choice for great deeds is seen as initially nobler; Romulus’s rise from humble beginnings (slave/swineherd repute) is deemed more remarkable.
City Founding	Unified existing Attic towns (synoecism).	Founded a new city from scratch, attracting outsiders/fugitives.	Romulus’s act of creation is considered greater; Theseus built upon existing structures.
Violence Towards Women	Multiple abductions (Ariadne, Antiope, Helen); Motivated by personal desire/wantonness (esp. later). Led to conflict.	Mass abduction (“Rape”) of Sabine women; Motivated by state necessity (lack of wives). Led to integration.	Plutarch judges Theseus’s motives (esp. for Helen) more harshly; views Romulus’s act as necessary for the state & ultimately beneficial in outcome (uniting peoples).
Violence Towards Kin	Indirect cause of father Aegeus’s death (negligence); Accused regarding cousins (Pallantides).	Directly killed brother Remus in a political dispute.	Both were stained, but Plutarch analyzes intent: Romulus’s act was deliberate and political, while Theseus’s case involved negligence, passion, and misfortune. Notes: Romulus saved the mother and grandfather.
Leadership Style/Flaws	Leaned towards popularity/democracy; Could be rash, inconsistent, prone to anger/lust.	Became autocratic/tyrannical later; Prone to anger, potentially suspicious.	Both deviated from ideal kingship, falling into opposite extremes (demagoguery vs. despotism).
Relationship with Gods	Born against Oracle’s warning to Aegeus? Less direct divine favour is shown.	Miraculously saved at birth (wolf); Claimed divine parentage (Mars); Achieved apotheosis (Quirinus)?	Romulus appears more favoured/preserved by the gods throughout his story.
End of Life	Lost favour, exiled by citizens, killed treacherously on Scyros.	Disappeared mysteriously during a storm; possible assassination by senators.	Both faced opposition from citizens and met violent/unfitting ends away from the peak of power.

 

Plutarch: Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius

 

Lycurgus Pictures

Numa Pompilius Pictures

 

Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius YouTube Video

The Lawgiver of Sparta | Lycurgus | Ancient Greece …

Numa Pompilius: The Zealot King of Rome (Roman Kings)

 

Plutarch: Life of Lycurgus and Life of Numa Pompilius

Plutarch’s Life of Lycurgus and Life of Numa Pompilius form another fascinating pairing in his Parallel Lives. Here, he examines two figures credited with establishing their respective states’ fundamental laws and customs: Lycurgus for Sparta and Numa Pompilius for Rome. While both aimed to create stable and virtuous societies, their approaches and the societies they shaped differed significantly.  

Life of Lycurgus:

• Plutarch portrays Lycurgus as the legendary lawgiver of Sparta, who transformed a state teetering on the brink of chaos into a disciplined and formidable military power.  
• He recounts Lycurgus’s travels and his consultation with the Delphic oracle, which sanctioned his laws. Plutarch details the core tenets of the Lycurgan system, including the establishment of the Gerousia (council of elders), the Ephorate (board of overseers), and the unique Spartan education system (agoge).  
• The biography emphasizes the radical social and economic reforms attributed to Lycurgus: the redistribution of land, the communal mess halls (syssitia), the discouragement of wealth and luxury, and the focus on military training and physical prowess.  
• Plutarch explores the austere and rigorous lifestyle imposed by Lycurgus, highlighting the emphasis on obedience, endurance, and the suppression of individual desires for the sake of the state.  
• He discusses Spartan women’s unique role and status within this system, noting their physical training and relative freedom compared to women in other Greek city-states.
• Plutarch touches upon the mysterious circumstances of Lycurgus’s death, suggesting he deliberately ended his life after securing a Spartan oath to uphold his laws.

Life of Numa Pompilius:

• Plutarch presents Numa as the second king of Rome, succeeding the more martial Romulus. Numa is depicted as a wise and pious ruler credited with establishing Rome’s religious and legal foundations.  
• The biography emphasizes Numa’s Sabine origins, his reputation for justice, and his reverence for the divine. Plutarch recounts his supposed consultations with the nymph Egeria, from whom he received divine guidance in establishing Roman institutions.  
• Plutarch details the religious innovations attributed to Numa: the creation of priesthoods (including the Vestal Virgins, the Salii, and the Pontifex Maximus), the establishment of sacred rites and rituals, and regulating the calendar.  
• He highlights Numa’s efforts to instill piety, order, and peace among the early Romans, diverting their focus from constant warfare towards religious observance and agricultural pursuits.
• Plutarch discusses Numa’s role in developing Roman law and social structures, including organizing the people into guilds based on their trades.
• The biography concludes with Numa’s peaceful reign and eventual death, leaving behind a legacy of religious tradition and a more civil Roman society.  

Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa:

In his comparison, Plutarch explores the contrasting approaches and outcomes of Lycurgus’s and Numa’s lawgiving:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both men were credited with establishing the fundamental institutions of their states and were seen as having a connection to the divine in their lawgiving. Both aimed to foster virtue and stability within their societies.  
• Differences: The core difference lies in their focus. Lycurgus shaped Sparta into a highly militaristic state, prioritizing discipline, austerity, and communal living. Numa, on the other hand, transformed early Rome by emphasizing religion, law, and peaceful coexistence. Lycurgus’s laws were designed for war and maintaining a rigid social order, while Numa’s aimed at fostering piety and civic harmony.  
• Plutarch also contrasts their methods. Lycurgus implemented radical and often austere reforms that fundamentally altered Spartan society. Numa’s approach was more gradual and focused on introducing religious customs and legal frameworks.  
• Plutarch reflects on the longevity of their systems. Lycurgus’s laws were remarkably enduring, shaping Sparta for centuries. Numa’s peaceful order, while influential, was eventually superseded by Rome’s expansionist and military ambitions.  
• Ultimately, Plutarch seems to suggest that both lawgivers were effective in their own contexts, addressing their respective peoples’ specific needs and temperaments. Lycurgus forged a powerful military state, while Numa laid the groundwork for Rome’s religious and legal identity.

Through these biographies, Plutarch provides insights into different models of state-building and the role of the lawgiver in shaping a nation’s character and destiny. He invites readers to consider the virtues and limitations of each approach, prompting reflection on the ideal balance between order, piety, and military strength in a well-functioning society.

 

Plutarch: Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius Compared. Table

Okay, here is a table-formatted comparison of Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis).

Feature	Lycurgus (Sparta)	Numa Pompilius (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Primary Goal/Focus	Military discipline, Equality, Stability, Obedience	Peace, Piety, Justice, Civic Order	Both aimed to shape their societies through laws derived from divine sources.
Method of Reform	Radical social engineering, Compulsion, Travel, Oath	Persuasion, Religious Authority (Nymph Egeria), Gradual Reform	Lycurgus’s task is seen as harder (persuading to give up luxury/wealth vs. Numa persuading warriors to be peaceful/pious).
Key Virtue Emphasized	Courage / Fortitude, Obedience	Justice, Piety / Religious Reverence	Plutarch weighs the value of military strength vs. justice/piety as foundational virtues.
Stance on Warfare	Created a highly effective military state	Promoted peace (closed Temple of Janus), discouraged war	Lycurgus made Sparta warlike to prevent injustice; Numa stopped war to prevent injustice.
Economic Policy	Radical equality: Land redistribution, banned gold/silver, iron currency	Allowed wealth diversity, instituted craft guilds	Lycurgus eliminated wealth disparity; Numa only curbed military rapacity, allowing wealth accumulation.
Education System	State-controlled military training (agoge) for all male citizens	Left largely to parents, focused on religious rites	Plutarch strongly praises Lycurgus’s system for instilling laws; he criticizes Numa’s lack of state education as a key weakness.
Approach to Women/Family	Physical training for women, state interest in procreation, and unique marriage customs	Emphasized modesty, domesticity, and religious roles (Vestals)	Some poets saw Lycurgus’s system as unfeminine; Numa’s was more conducive to traditional female decorum.
Attitude Towards Lower Class	Harsh treatment of Helots (criticized by Plutarch)	Relative kindness to slaves (Saturnalia custom mentioned)	Numa was considered more “Hellenic” (humane) in this aspect.
Personal Trajectory	Resigned kingship, self-exiled, died abroad (possibly suicide)	Accepted kingship as a private citizen, long, peaceful reign, and died naturally	Contrasts Lycurgus giving up power vs. Numa accepting it; Lycurgus choosing justice over the crown vs. Numa chosen for justice.
System’s Permanence	Laws endured long after his death (due to education)	Peace ended immediately after his death (lacked educational enforcement)	Sparta declined when abandoning Lycurgus’s laws; Rome grew through war after Numa’s era.

 

Plutarch: Solon and Publicola

 

Solon Pictures

Publicola Pictures

Solon and Publicola YouTube Video

Solon of Athens: The Grandfather of Democracy

The Life of Poplicola by Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Solon and Life of Publicola

Plutarch’s Life of Solon and Life of Publicola offer a study in the evolution of republican governance in Athens and Rome, respectively. Solon, a wise Athenian statesman, is credited with significant legal and social reforms that laid the groundwork for Athenian democracy. Publicola, a key figure in the early Roman Republic, played a crucial role in establishing its institutions after the expulsion of the monarchy.  

Life of Solon:

• Plutarch portrays Solon as a man of noble birth and wisdom who was chosen as archon (chief magistrate) in a time of great social and economic turmoil in Athens.
• He details the dire situation in Athens, marked by debt slavery, land concentration, and deep class divisions between the wealthy elite and the impoverished masses.
• The biography focuses on Solon’s sweeping reforms, known as the Seisachtheia (“shaking off of burdens”), which included the cancellation of debts, the freeing of those enslaved for debt, and the prohibition of future debt slavery.
• Plutarch describes Solon’s constitutional reforms, such as the creation of new social classes based on wealth (rather than birth), the establishment of the Boule (Council of 400, later 500), and the granting of political rights to a wider segment of the citizenry, including the right to appeal judicial decisions to the Heliaia (popular assembly).  
• He recounts Solon’s laws on various aspects of Athenian life, including commerce, family, and crime, emphasizing his aim to create a more just and balanced society.
• Plutarch also discusses Solon’s famous travels after his archonship, during which he visited Egypt and Lydia and famously advised King Croesus.
• The biography concludes with Solon’s return to Athens and his observations on the subsequent political struggles and the rise of tyranny, highlighting his belief in the importance of good laws and civic virtue.

Life of Publicola:

• Plutarch introduces Publius Valerius Publicola as a prominent Roman aristocrat who played a leading role in the expulsion of the tyrannical King Tarquin the Proud and the establishment of the Roman Republic.  
• He emphasizes Publicola’s commitment to liberty and his efforts to ensure that the new republic did not resemble the oppressive monarchy it had overthrown.
• The biography details Publicola’s co-consulship with Lucius Junius Brutus and the measures they took to secure the republic, including the swearing of an oath never to allow another king in Rome.
• Plutarch recounts the various laws and customs attributed to Publicola aimed at safeguarding republican principles, such as allowing appeals to the people in capital cases, lowering the fasces (symbols of authority) when addressing the assembly, and building his house on the lower part of the Caelian Hill to demonstrate his commitment to equality.  
• He highlights Publicola’s military successes in defending the young republic against Etruscan threats and his reputation for fairness and popularity among the Roman people.
• Plutarch discusses Publicola’s repeated consulships and his consistent dedication to upholding the laws and institutions of the republic, earning him the honorific “Publicola,” meaning “friend of the people.”  
• The biography concludes with Publicola’s death and the high esteem in which he was held by the Roman citizenry as a founder and protector of their liberty.

Comparison of Solon and Publicola:

In his comparison, Plutarch draws parallels between the challenges faced by Solon and Publicola and their respective contributions to establishing more equitable forms of government:  

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both men emerged during periods of significant political and social unrest in their respective cities and were instrumental in laying the foundations for more popular forms of government. Both were known for their wisdom, integrity, and dedication to the welfare of their people. They both enacted laws aimed at preventing tyranny and protecting the rights of citizens.
• Differences: Solon’s work focused on reforming an existing aristocratic system and alleviating social and economic inequalities, paving the way for democracy. Publicola’s efforts centered on establishing a republic after the overthrow of a monarchy, ensuring that the new system was grounded in the principles of liberty and the rule of law.
• Plutarch also highlights the different contexts in which they operated. Solon dealt with internal strife and the need for fundamental social and economic adjustments. Publicola faced the immediate challenge of consolidating a newly formed republic and defending it against external enemies.  
• While Solon’s reforms laid the groundwork for Athenian democracy, it was a process that continued after his time and experienced periods of instability. Publicola’s actions were more directly aimed at preventing a return to monarchy and establishing key republican institutions that proved more enduring in the early Roman Republic.
• Ultimately, Plutarch presents both Solon and Publicola as virtuous leaders who, through their wisdom and commitment to the public good, played crucial roles in shaping the political trajectories of their respective city-states, moving them towards more participatory forms of governance. He underscores the importance of good laws and the dedication of virtuous citizens in establishing and maintaining free societies.

 

Plutarch: Solon and Publicola Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Solon and Publicola (Publius Valerius Poplicola) based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Solon (Athens)	Publicola (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Context of Action	City near collapse due to severe internal economic/social crisis (debt bondage).	Establishment and defense of a new Republic after overthrowing monarchy (Tarquins).	Solon faced a deeper internal crisis; Publicola secured a newly formed state against external/internal threats to the monarchy.
Role/Primary Achievement	Foundational Lawgiver, Mediator, Poet, Sage.	Co-founder of Republic, Consul, General, Lawgiver.	Solon created a new constitution from chaos; Publicola secured and institutionalized the Republic.
Originality vs. Imitation	Seen as original, creating his own system (“followed no man’s example”).	Admired and imitated Solon, transferring some Athenian laws (popular election, appeal) to Rome.	Plutarch explicitly notes this unique relationship: Publicola the imitator, Solon the model.
Key Reforms/Laws	Seisachtheia (debt relief), Constitutional reforms (classes, Council), new law code.	Laws strengthening the Republic: Right of appeal (provocatio), severe anti-tyranny laws, established quaestors, augmented Senate.	Solon’s debt relief is seen as unique and vital for liberty. Publicola’s laws focused on securing popular rights post-monarchy.
Relationship with People/Power	Acted as mediator, resisted extremes (didn’t seize tyranny when offered).	Actively courted popular favor (name “Publicola”), lowered fasces in deference, strong anti-tyranny stance.	Publicola is seen as more intensely anti-tyrannical and more overtly deferential to the people.
Integrity/Attitude to Wealth	He resisted enriching himself during reforms and valued virtue over wealth.	Incorruptible, famously died poor and was buried at public expense, and spent wealth beneficently.	Both are praised for their high integrity. Publicola’s honorable poverty is perhaps more emphasized as a contrast to potential consular riches.
Military Role	Limited (Salamis campaign, achieved via ‘counterfeit madness’ per Plutarch).	Significant; key military leader in defending the early Republic against Tarquins/allies.	Publicola clearly had the more substantial and conventional military career.
Later Life / End of Career	Left Athens for 10 years; lived to see his system challenged by tyranny (Pisistratus).	Remained active in politics/military; died highly honored while still influential.	Publicola’s end seen as happier and more successful in establishing his polity firmly during his lifetime.
Plutarch’s View on Success	Wisest of men; provided foundational laws but saw them falter.	Happiest of men (fulfilling Solon’s criteria to Croesus); successfully established and defended his system until death.	Plutarch admires Solon’s wisdom deeply but awards Publicola greater success and fortune in the outcome of his life and work.

 

Plutarch: Themistocles and Camillus

Themistocles Pictures

Camillus Pictures

Themistocles and Camillus YouTube Video

The Sin Of Pride | Themistocles & The Battle of Salamis …

The Life of Camillus by Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Themistocles and Life of Camillus

Plutarch’s Life of Themistocles and Life of Camillus present a compelling study of leadership during critical periods of war and political upheaval in Greece and Rome, respectively. Themistocles, the brilliant Athenian strategist, guided Athens through the Persian Wars, while Camillus, the “second founder of Rome,” led the city through periods of defeat and rebuilding.  

Life of Themistocles:

• Plutarch portrays Themistocles as an ambitious and cunning Athenian statesman and general who rose to prominence recognizing the existential threat posed by the Persian Empire.  
• He highlights Themistocles’s foresight in advocating for the development of the Athenian navy, famously interpreting the Delphic oracle’s prophecy about “wooden walls” to mean ships.  
• The biography vividly recounts Themistocles’s crucial role in the Battle of Salamis (480 BCE), where his strategic brilliance and skillful maneuvering of the Athenian fleet led to a decisive Greek victory against the larger Persian navy, arguably saving Greece from Persian domination.  
• Plutarch details Themistocles’s post-war efforts to rebuild Athens, including the construction of the Long Walls connecting the city to its port at Piraeus, a strategic move that ensured Athens’s long-term security and economic power.
• He also discusses Themistocles’s political maneuvering, his rivalry with other prominent Athenians, and his eventual ostracism from Athens.
• The biography follows Themistocles’s exile and his unexpected refuge with the Persian king Artaxerxes, who, despite their past conflict, welcomed him. Plutarch explores the complexities of Themistocles’s character, highlighting his ambition, intelligence, and ultimately tragic end in Persian service.

Life of Camillus:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Furius Camillus as a Roman patrician and military leader who played a pivotal role in the survival and resurgence of Rome during the 4th century BCE.  
• He recounts Camillus’s early military successes, including the capture of the Etruscan city of Veii after a long siege, a significant expansion of Roman power.
• The biography details the devastating Gallic sack of Rome (circa 390 BCE) and Camillus’s absence due to alleged unjust accusations and exile.
• Plutarch dramatically narrates Camillus’s return to Rome as dictator to rally the demoralized citizens and lead the defense against the remaining Gauls. He is credited with decisively defeating the Gauls and preventing the abandonment of Rome.
• Camillus is portrayed as a figure of immense authority and integrity, earning the title of “second founder of Rome” for his role in its salvation and rebuilding.  
• Plutarch discusses Camillus’s subsequent military campaigns, his wisdom in handling internal disputes, and his efforts to restore order and stability to the Roman state.
• The biography concludes with Camillus’s death, emphasizing his significant contributions to Rome’s military strength and its survival during a critical period.

Comparison of Themistocles and Camillus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines the parallels between the challenges faced by Themistocles and Camillus and their leadership in times of crisis:  

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both men rose to prominence during periods of grave danger for their respective cities, facing formidable external enemies (Persians and Gauls). Both demonstrated exceptional military leadership and strategic thinking, playing decisive roles in turning the tide of war. Both also experienced periods of exile or political opposition within their own societies, highlighting the often precarious nature of political success.
• Differences: The nature of the threats they faced differed. Themistocles confronted a vast and technologically superior invading force, requiring naval innovation and strategic deception. Camillus dealt with a more localized, albeit devastating, invasion and the subsequent challenge of rebuilding a shattered city.  
• Themistocles’s brilliance lay primarily in naval strategy and political maneuvering, while Camillus excelled in traditional Roman land warfare and possessed a strong sense of Roman tradition and authority.
• Plutarch also contrasts their post-crisis actions. Themistocles focused on long-term strategic development (the Long Walls), while Camillus concentrated on immediate recovery and the restoration of Roman institutions and morale.
• The circumstances of their exiles also differ significantly, with Themistocles ultimately seeking refuge with a former enemy, while Camillus was recalled by his own people in their direst hour.  
• Ultimately, Plutarch presents both Themistocles and Camillus as indispensable leaders who, through their courage, intelligence, and dedication, guided their cities through existential crises. Themistocles’s foresight saved Athens and shaped its naval power, while Camillus’s resilience and leadership ensured Rome’s survival and resurgence, solidifying his place as a pivotal figure in its early history.

 

Plutarch: Themistocles and Camillus Compared

Okay, here is a comparison of Themistocles and Camillus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Themistocles (Athens)	Camillus (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Primary Achievement	Defeating Persian invasion at Battle of Salamis (saving Greece).	Numerous victories: Conquering Veii, Saving Rome from Gauls (“Second Founder”).	Themistocles’ achievement perhaps greater in singular impact/genius; Camillus’s more numerous over a longer career.
Character / Key Talent	Natural genius, foresight, political shrewdness, cunning, adaptability.	Military skill, discipline, piety, traditional Roman virtue, leadership.	Themistocles’ talent seen as more innate/brilliant; Camillus’s perhaps derived more from experience/effort, embodying Roman ideals more straightforwardly.
Political Context	Operated within Athenian Democracy; often used popular support.	Operated within Roman Republic; often held dictatorial power during crises.	Different systems influenced their paths to power and methods of leadership.
Experience with Exile	Ostracized due to political envy, arrogance, suspicion of Medism.	Exiled over dispute regarding spoils of Veii, perceived arrogance.	Both saved their cities yet faced ingratitude and political opposition leading to exile.
Conduct During Exile	Eventually sought refuge and entered service of Persian King (enemy of Greece).	Lived quietly until recalled; returned immediately to save Rome from Gauls.	Plutarch strongly contrasts their actions, heavily favoring Camillus’s patriotism and refusal to harm Rome, while implicitly condemning Themistocles’ choice.
End of Life / Legacy	Died in honorable exile in Persia, unable to return to Athens. Complex legacy.	Recalled to further glory, died old and highly honored in Rome. Clear heroic legacy.	Plutarch views Camillus’s end as far more fortunate and honorable.
Overall Judgment Point	Possessed unparalleled genius but flawed consistency/choices, especially in exile.	Showed consistent virtue, patriotism, and military success; ending more commendable.	While admiring Themistocles’ brilliance, Plutarch ultimately favors Camillus for his steadfast virtue and honorable relationship with his country.

 

Plutarch: Pericles and Fabius Maximus

Pericles Pictures

 

Fabius Maximus Pictures

Pericles and Fabius Maximus YouTube Video

Pericles, the Golden Age of Athens

The Life of Fabius Maximus by Plutarch

The Horrifying Way Rome Dealt With Wartime Loss

 

Plutarch: Life of Pericles and Life of Fabius Maximus

Plutarch’s Life of Pericles and Life of Fabius Maximus offer a fascinating study in leadership styles during times of war and political tension. Pericles, the preeminent Athenian statesman during its Golden Age, guided Athens through a period of cultural flourishing and the early stages of the Peloponnesian War. Fabius Maximus, on the other hand, was a Roman leader known for his cautious and strategic approach during the Second Punic War against Hannibal.  

Life of Pericles:

• Plutarch portrays Pericles as a man of noble birth, exceptional eloquence, and profound political acumen who dominated Athenian politics for over four decades.  
• He highlights Pericles’s early political skills, his association with popular reforms, and his ability to sway the Athenian assembly through his powerful oratory.
• The biography details Pericles’s role in the construction of magnificent public works on the Acropolis, such as the Parthenon, which beautified Athens and provided employment, marking the zenith of Athenian cultural achievement.
• Plutarch discusses Pericles’s leadership during the lead-up to the Peloponnesian War, emphasizing his strategic thinking and his unwavering belief in Athens’s strength and its democratic principles.
• He recounts the initial phases of the war, including Pericles’s defensive strategy of retreating within the city walls and relying on Athens’s naval power, a strategy that, while initially sound, ultimately contributed to the devastating plague.
• Plutarch explores the challenges Pericles faced, including political opposition, personal tragedies (like the loss of his sons), and the shifting public opinion during the war.  
• The biography concludes with Pericles’s death during the plague, acknowledging his immense influence on Athens and the complexities of his legacy, including both the brilliance of his leadership and the criticisms leveled against him.

Life of Fabius Maximus:

• Plutarch presents Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus as a Roman statesman and general who rose to prominence during the critical Second Punic War against Hannibal.  
• He emphasizes Fabius’s cautious and deliberate approach to warfare, earning him the cognomen “Cunctator” (the Delayer) for his strategy of avoiding direct confrontation with Hannibal’s superior forces.  
• The biography details Fabius’s strategy of attrition: shadowing Hannibal’s army, harassing his supply lines, and wearing him down without engaging in a major battle. This unconventional approach was met with criticism and impatience by some in Rome.  
• Plutarch recounts the political challenges Fabius faced, including accusations of cowardice and the temporary appointment of a master of the horse, Marcus Minucius Rufus, who advocated for a more aggressive strategy, leading to a near-disastrous Roman defeat.  
• He highlights Fabius’s wisdom and steadfastness in adhering to his strategy despite public pressure, ultimately recognizing that Hannibal’s strength lay in open battle.
• Plutarch discusses Fabius’s later contributions to Rome, including his role in maintaining stability and offering wise counsel during the prolonged war.
• The biography concludes with Fabius’s death, honoring him as a figure whose patience and strategic thinking were crucial to Rome’s eventual victory over Hannibal, even though he did not live to see the final triumph.

Comparison of Pericles and Fabius Maximus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two contrasting leadership styles in times of conflict and political complexity:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both Pericles and Fabius Maximus were highly respected figures in their respective societies, known for their wisdom and commitment to their states’ welfare. Both faced significant challenges and opposition during their leadership. Both also demonstrated a long-term perspective in their strategies, though applied in different ways.
• Differences: The most striking difference lies in their leadership styles. Pericles was a dynamic orator and a proponent of bold initiatives, leading Athens to its cultural zenith and confidently entering the Peloponnesian War. Fabius was cautious and deliberate, employing a strategy of attrition and delay to counter a seemingly invincible enemy.  
• Pericles’s power stemmed from his eloquence and his ability to persuade the Athenian assembly, operating within a democratic system. Fabius’s authority derived from his senatorial standing, his reputation for wisdom, and his steadfastness in the face of public criticism within a more aristocratic republic.  
• The nature of the conflicts they faced also differed. Pericles led Athens in a protracted war against another major Greek power, while Fabius confronted a foreign invader who had inflicted devastating defeats on Roman armies.
• Plutarch seems to suggest that both leadership styles had their merits and were suited to their specific circumstances. Pericles’s bold vision guided Athens to its Golden Age, but his war strategy had limitations. Fabius’s cautious approach, while initially unpopular, ultimately proved crucial to Rome’s survival against Hannibal’s brilliance.  

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the multifaceted nature of leadership, demonstrating that effective governance can take different forms depending on the context, the leader’s character, and the state’s needs. He invites readers to consider the virtues of decisive action and prudent restraint in navigating times of crisis.

 

Plutarch: Pericles and Fabius Maximus Compared. Table

Please Note: The formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost for the pair of Pericles and Fabius Maximus. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the themes and parallels Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two particular statesmen.

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Pericles and Fabius Maximus based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Pericles (Athens)	Fabius Maximus (Rome)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Core Virtues	Gravity, dignity, intelligence, steadfastness, incorruptibility, resisted popular passions.	Gravity, dignity, intelligence, steadfastness, incorruptibility, resisted popular passions.	Plutarch paired them primarily for these shared qualities of calm, rational, and resolute leadership, especially in difficult times.
Primary Role / Context	Leading statesman & general during Athens’ Golden Age; managed empire & democracy.	Roman general & dictator (“Cunctator”); led Rome during its most perilous period against Hannibal.	Both were paramount leaders of their states during major existential wars (Peloponnesian War start / Second Punic War crisis).
Major Challenge Faced	Leading a confident, powerful state into a long war; managing internal politics & plague.	Saving a state facing imminent destruction after catastrophic defeats by a foreign invader (Hannibal).	Fabius faced a more immediate, desperate crisis requiring extraordinary measures to ensure state survival.
Military Strategy	Defensive: rely on walls/navy, avoid decisive land battles, preserve strength.	Defensive: Avoid pitched battles (“Fabian tactics”), harass enemy, target supplies, wear down opponent through attrition.	Both adopted cautious, strategically sound (though unpopular) defensive strategies tailored to their specific circumstances, prioritizing state preservation over risky glory.
Relationship w/ People / Criticism	Faced criticism for letting Attica be ravaged; maintained control through oratory/authority.	Faced intense criticism & accusations of cowardice for delaying tactics; endured political opposition (e.g., Minucius).	Both showed immense fortitude in adhering to unpopular but necessary strategies despite significant public and political pressure. Fabius’s situation perhaps required greater resilience against direct accusations of cowardice.
Political Style / Influence	Dominated Athenian democracy through persuasive oratory and long-held authority (“Olympian”).	Influential through gravitas, experience, traditional authority; repeatedly appointed dictator in crises.	Pericles led through democratic persuasion; Fabius through established authority and reputation for prudence.
Integrity / Motivation	Seen as incorruptible despite managing vast public funds; motivated by Athens’ glory/welfare.	Praised for integrity and lack of personal enrichment; endured slights for the state’s good; motivated by patriotism.	Both presented as prioritizing the state’s well-being above personal gain or easy popularity.
Cultural Association	Presided over and fostered Athens’ cultural peak (Parthenon, arts, philosophy).	Primarily focused on military salvation and traditional Roman virtues; less associated with cultural patronage.	Pericles’ leadership encompassed broader cultural dimensions characteristic of Athens’ Golden Age.
Plutarch’s Likely View	Admired as an exemplary rational leader and architect of Athenian greatness.	Deeply admired as the steadfast savior of Rome, whose prudent strategy and fortitude were essential.	Plutarch likely saw both as models of wise, steadfast leadership, perhaps highlighting Fabius’s extraordinary resilience and prudence in the face of near-certain doom.

 

Plutarch: Alcibiades and Coriolanus

Alcibiades Pictures

Coriolanus Pictures

Alcibiades and Coriolanus YouTube Video

Alcibiades, the Peloponnesian War, and the Art of Intrigue

The Life of Cauis Marcius Coriolanus by Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Alcibiades and Life of Coriolanus

Plutarch’s Life of Alcibiades and Life of Coriolanus offer a compelling study of brilliant but ultimately flawed individuals whose exceptional talents were intertwined with significant character weaknesses, leading to dramatic and often tragic consequences for their respective city-states. Alcibiades, the charismatic and controversial Athenian, and Coriolanus, the fiercely proud Roman patrician, both possessed extraordinary abilities but struggled with hubris and an inability to navigate the complexities of their political environments.

Life of Alcibiades:

• Plutarch portrays Alcibiades as a man of immense talent, striking beauty, and captivating charm, but also as impulsive, ambitious, and prone to betrayal.
• He highlights Alcibiades’s privileged upbringing, his association with Socrates, and his early successes in Athenian politics and military command.
• The biography details Alcibiades’s instrumental role in the disastrous Sicilian Expedition, his subsequent betrayal of Athens by defecting to Sparta, and his later return to Athens in triumph.
• Plutarch recounts Alcibiades’s military achievements while serving both Sparta and Athens, showcasing his strategic brilliance and his ability to adapt to different political landscapes.
• However, the biography also emphasizes Alcibiades’s recklessness, his scandalous behavior, and the deep distrust he engendered among his fellow citizens, ultimately leading to his final exile and assassination.
• Plutarch explores the complexities of Alcibiades’s character, acknowledging his undeniable genius and his contributions to Athens, while also condemning his lack of loyalty and his self-serving actions.

Life of Coriolanus:

• Plutarch presents Caius Marcius Coriolanus as a man of exceptional courage, military prowess, and unwavering integrity, but also as fiercely proud, inflexible, and contemptuous of the common people.
• He recounts Coriolanus’s early military valor, particularly during the siege of Corioli (hence his name), where his bravery earned him great renown.
• The biography details Coriolanus’s political career in Rome, marked by his aristocratic disdain for the plebeians and his opposition to granting them greater political rights (specifically, the tribuneship).
• Plutarch describes Coriolanus’s uncompromising stance during a grain shortage, demanding the abolition of the tribunes in exchange for distributing grain, which led to his banishment from Rome.
• The biography dramatically narrates Coriolanus’s alliance with Rome’s enemies, the Volscians, and his leading their army against his own city, bringing Rome to the brink of destruction.
• Plutarch recounts the emotional pleas of Coriolanus’s mother, Volumnia, and his wife, which ultimately persuaded him to withdraw his forces, thus saving Rome but leading to his own death at the hands of the Volscians.
• Plutarch emphasizes Coriolanus’s rigid adherence to his principles and his inability to compromise, highlighting the tragic consequences of his unyielding pride.

Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines the parallel trajectories of two brilliant but deeply flawed individuals whose character flaws led to their downfall and significantly impacted their states:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both Alcibiades and Coriolanus possessed extraordinary talents and achieved great military success. Both were also marked by a significant degree of arrogance and an inability to connect with or understand the common people in their societies. Their inflexibility and pride ultimately led to their alienation from their own cities and their involvement with their enemies.
• Differences: Alcibiades’s flaws were characterized by a lack of consistent loyalty and a self-serving ambition that led him to betray Athens multiple times. Coriolanus’s primary failing was his unyielding pride and his contempt for the plebeians, which drove him to seek revenge against Rome. Alcibiades was adaptable and could charm his way into different situations, while Coriolanus was rigid and uncompromising.
• Alcibiades’s impact on Athens was more fluid and dynamic, marked by periods of great success and deep betrayal. Coriolanus’s impact was more direct and dramatic, bringing Rome to the verge of destruction due to his vengeful actions.
• Plutarch seems to suggest that while both men were exceptionally gifted, their inability to control their inherent flaws and to navigate the complexities of their political environments ultimately led to tragedy for themselves and significant turmoil for their respective cities. Alcibiades’s lack of principle and Coriolanus’s excessive pride serve as cautionary tales of how even great talents can be undermined by character weaknesses.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the intricate relationship between talent, character, and political success, highlighting the dangers of unchecked ambition and unyielding pride in the public sphere. He invites readers to reflect on the importance of virtue and the ability to compromise in effective leadership and responsible citizenship.

 

Plutarch: Alcibiades and Coriolanus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Alcibiades (Athens)	Coriolanus (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Core Similarity	Great ability (military/political); flawed character led to harming homeland after feeling wronged.	Great ability (military); flawed character led to harming homeland after feeling wronged.	Both exemplify how personal failings in great men can lead to betrayal and immense damage to their own countries. Both caused great calamities for their cities.
Defining Character Flaw	Inconsistency, excessive ambition, lack of stable principle, vanity, perhaps dissoluteness.	Overwhelming aristocratic pride (superbia), inflexibility, uncontrolled anger, contempt for common people.	Contrasts Alcibiades’ adaptable but unprincipled nature with Coriolanus’s straightforward but destructive pride and anger.
Motivation for Turning Against State	Self-preservation (fleeing condemnation), opportunism, ambition for power/influence wherever possible.	Rage, wounded pride, desire for revenge after perceived unjust exile inflicted by the plebeians/tribunes.	Alcibiades driven by complex self-interest; Coriolanus by a simpler (though excessive) reaction to perceived insult/injustice.
Nature of Harm Inflicted	Strategic advice to enemies (Sparta, Persia), promoting disastrous policies (Sicilian Expedition).	Directly led an enemy (Volscian) army to besiege Rome, threatening its destruction.	Coriolanus’s threat was more immediate and militarily direct; Alcibiades’ harm was perhaps more insidious and political, but also devastating long-term.
Political Style / Demeanor	Charismatic, adaptable, could manipulate popular opinion, lived extravagantly.	Openly contemptuous of plebeians, haughty, refused to court popular favor, valued aristocratic virtue.	Alcibiades could play the political game when needed; Coriolanus’s pride made him politically self-destructive among the populace.
Consistency / Adaptability	Highly adaptable, changed allegiances and manners multiple times (Athens, Sparta, Persia).	Rigidly consistent in his pride and principles until the very end.	Alcibiades is seen as changeable/less predictable; Coriolanus is stubbornly consistent (perhaps less deceitful in his enmity, but also less flexible).
Final Act / Yielding	Recalls to Athens based on political shifts/opportunity; no single act of relenting for patriotic reasons.	Spared Rome only after intense emotional appeals from his mother, wife, and Roman matrons (pietas).	Coriolanus’s yielding, though leading to his doom, showed susceptibility to family duty; Alcibiades’ shifts were more strategic/opportunistic.
End of Life / Legacy	Assassinated in exile in Phrygia; legacy is one of brilliant potential wasted by instability/betrayal.	Killed by resentful Volscians or died in disgraced exile; legacy is one of great valor undone by pride and treason.	Both died violently/unhappily in exile, serving as tragic warnings against letting personal flaws override patriotism.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Condemns both for harming their countries. Views Alcibiades as brilliant but dangerously inconsistent/unprincipled. Views Coriolanus as valiant but fatally flawed by pride/anger.	Neither is presented as a model, but as examples of how character flaws can ruin great men and endanger states.

 

Plutarch: Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus

Timoleon Pictures

Aemilius Paulus Pictures

Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus YouTube Video

The Life of Timoleon by Plutarch

The Life of Aemilius By Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Timoleon and Life of Aemilius Paulus

Plutarch’s Life of Timoleon and Life of Aemilius Paulus offer a study in virtuous leadership and the ability to navigate complex military and political situations with integrity and skill. Timoleon, who liberated the Greek cities of Sicily from tyranny, is paired with Aemilius Paulus, the Roman general renowned for his victory over Macedon and his upright character. Both men were admired for their competence, their sense of justice, and their relative lack of personal ambition.

Life of Timoleon:

• Plutarch portrays Timoleon as a man of noble Corinthian lineage who reluctantly accepted the call to lead Syracuse against its tyrants. He is depicted as possessing a naturally virtuous character, marked by integrity and a disdain for personal gain.
• The biography recounts the complex political situation in Sicily, where various Greek cities were plagued by internal strife and the rule of oppressive tyrants, often with Carthaginian interference.
• Plutarch details Timoleon’s remarkable and somewhat unexpected successes in Sicily. Despite facing numerous challenges, including a small initial force and the opposition of powerful tyrants and Carthaginian armies, he achieved decisive victories. He is particularly known for his victories at the Crimissus River and Abacaenum.
• The biography emphasizes Timoleon’s skill in uniting the Greek cities of Sicily under a common cause of liberation and establishing stable, lawful governments after the expulsion of the tyrants. He is credited with bringing a period of peace and prosperity to the region.
• Plutarch highlights Timoleon’s modesty and his refusal to establish himself as a ruler in Syracuse, choosing instead to work through elected officials and uphold the laws. He maintained a relatively simple lifestyle and prioritized the well-being of the Sicilian Greeks over his own power.
• The biography concludes with Timoleon’s respected later life in Sicily, where he remained influential but out of formal power, offering wise counsel until his death. He is remembered as a liberator and a model of selfless leadership.

Life of Aemilius Paulus:

• Plutarch presents Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus as a distinguished Roman patrician known for his military prowess, his adherence to Roman virtue (virtus), and his dignified character.
• The biography recounts his initial consulship and his military successes in Hispania. However, it primarily focuses on his second consulship and his command in the Third Macedonian War against King Perseus.
• Plutarch details Aemilius Paulus’s meticulous preparations for the Macedonian campaign, his emphasis on discipline and training, and his strategic brilliance in the decisive Battle of Pydna, which brought an end to the Macedonian kingdom.
• The biography describes Aemilius Paulus’s just and organized administration of Macedonia after his victory, contrasting it with the often exploitative practices of other Roman commanders. He is portrayed as fair and respectful of the conquered people while firmly establishing Roman authority.
• Plutarch also touches upon the personal tragedies Aemilius Paulus endured, including the loss of his two eldest sons, which he bore with stoic dignity, placing the interests of the Republic above his personal grief.
• The biography concludes with Aemilius Paulus’s triumphant return to Rome and the grand triumph held in his honor, followed by his respected later life. He is remembered as a virtuous and capable leader who exemplified Roman ideals.

Comparison of Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus:

In his comparison, Plutarch highlights the shared virtues and the different contexts of leadership exhibited by Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus:

• Similarities: Plutarch emphasizes the integrity, justice, and lack of personal ambition in both men. Both were successful military commanders who earned the respect and admiration of their people. Both are presented as acting out of a sense of duty and prioritizing the common good over personal gain. They both brought stability and order to regions plagued by conflict.
• Differences: Timoleon operated in a context of fragmented Greek city-states threatened by tyranny and external powers, acting as a liberator and unifier. Aemilius Paulus led the well-established Roman Republic in a war of conquest against a powerful kingdom. Timoleon’s successes often involved overcoming significant odds with limited resources, while Aemilius Paulus commanded the might of Rome.
• Timoleon’s primary achievement was the liberation and organization of independent Greek cities, while Aemilius Paulus’s was the decisive conquest and subsequent administration of a former kingdom under Roman rule.
• Plutarch seems to present both men as exemplars of virtuous leadership, albeit in different arenas. Timoleon’s selflessness in liberating Sicily and establishing free governments is contrasted with Aemilius Paulus’s disciplined command and just administration following a major Roman conquest. Both demonstrate that effective leadership can be guided by integrity and a focus on the well-being of those they lead.

Through these biographies, Plutarch illustrates that virtuous leadership can manifest in different ways depending on the historical circumstances. Both Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus serve as models of leaders who achieved greatness through their competence, integrity, and dedication to the welfare of their people, rather than through personal ambition or tyranny.

 

Plutarch: Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Timoleon and Aemilius Paulus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Timoleon (Greek/Corinthian)	Aemilius Paulus (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Primary Military Achievement	Liberating Sicily from tyrants and defeating Carthaginians (esp. Battle of Crimisus).	Conquering the Kingdom of Macedon (Battle of Pydna), ending the Antigonid dynasty.	Both achieved glorious victories against powerful enemies. Plutarch weighs Timoleon achieving much with limited/disorderly forces vs. Paulus defeating an established kingdom.
Role	Liberator, Restorer of democracy/cities.	Conqueror, Organizer of Roman province.	Contrasts the nature of their campaigns: liberation vs. conquest.
Virtue vs. Fortune (Arete vs. Tyche)	Career marked by extraordinary good fortune, often seen as divinely guided.	Success attributed more to skill, discipline, and preparation; faced personal misfortune (death of sons).	Plutarch explicitly discusses this balance for both, finding Timoleon exceptionally favored by fortune, while Paulus demonstrated virtue amidst mixed personal fortune.
Integrity (Wealth/Power)	Lived modestly, retired voluntarily from power, accepted gifted estate (seen as acceptable).	Refused any personal share of vast Macedonian spoils, known for incorruptibility.	Both praised for integrity. Plutarch suggests Paulus’s refusal to accept anything represents a “surpassing virtue.”
Handling Personal Adversity	Deeply affected by remorse over brother’s justified death (tyranny), withdrew for years; faced blindness with fortitude.	Endured the death of two sons around his triumph with stoic dignity and continued public duty.	Plutarch greatly admires Paulus’s fortitude in grief, finding it showed a more perfectly tempered spirit than Timoleon’s prolonged, perhaps excessive, remorse.
Background / Character Formation	Virtue stood out compared to other corrupt Greek commanders in Sicily (seen as more innate).	Virtue seen partly as instilled by Roman laws, customs, and discipline of his time.	Both were models of virtue, but Plutarch notes the differing contexts that shaped/highlighted their integrity.
Death / Legacy	Died blind but highly honored and revered as a father figure by Sicilians.	Died after a distinguished career, highly respected in Rome.	Contrasts Timoleon’s honored but personally afflicted end with Paulus’s more conventional Roman end after great triumph and personal tragedy.
Overall Judgment Point	A remarkable figure whose virtue and astonishing good fortune achieved great liberation.	Embodied Roman discipline, skill, integrity, and exceptional fortitude in adversity.	Plutarch admires both greatly, exploring different paths to virtuous success and the interplay of character, skill, and fortune. Paulus perhaps seen as having a more perfectly balanced/stoic character.

 

Plutarch: Pelopidas and Marcellus

Pelopidas Pictures

Marcellus Pictures

Pelopidas and Marcellus YouTube Video

The Life of Pelopidas By Plutarch

The Epic Life of Marcus Marcellus

Ingenious Siegecraft: The (Staggering) Siege of Syracuse 213 …

 

Plutarch: Life of Pelopidas and Life of Marcellus

Plutarch’s Life of Pelopidas and Life of Marcellus offer a study in military leadership and the contrasting fortunes of two prominent figures in Greek and Roman history during periods of intense conflict. Pelopidas, the Theban general and statesman, was instrumental in establishing Theban hegemony in Greece, while Marcus Claudius Marcellus was a renowned Roman general who played a key role in the Second Punic War, particularly in the siege of Syracuse. Both were celebrated for their courage and military skill, but their approaches and ultimate legacies differed.  

Life of Pelopidas:

• Plutarch portrays Pelopidas as a man of noble Theban lineage, characterized by his bravery, his unwavering friendship with Epaminondas, and his dedication to the freedom and power of Thebes.  
• The biography recounts Pelopidas’s early involvement in the liberation of Thebes from Spartan occupation in 379 BCE, a pivotal event that set the stage for Theban ascendancy.
• Plutarch emphasizes Pelopidas’s crucial role in the development of the Theban military, particularly the Sacred Band, an elite infantry unit composed of pairs of lovers who fought with unmatched ferocity.  
• The biography details Pelopidas’s significant military victories, often in collaboration with Epaminondas, including the decisive Battle of Leuctra (371 BCE) against Sparta, which shattered Spartan power and ushered in the Theban hegemony.  
• Plutarch also recounts Pelopidas’s diplomatic missions and his involvement in Thessaly, where he played a key role in opposing tyrants and Macedonian influence. He faced considerable danger in these endeavors, even being imprisoned at one point.  
• The biography concludes with Pelopidas’s death in Thessaly during a battle against Alexander of Pherae. Plutarch mourns the loss of a great Theban leader who, alongside Epaminondas, had brought Thebes to its zenith.

Life of Marcellus:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Claudius Marcellus as a valiant and tenacious Roman general who distinguished himself during the Second Punic War against Hannibal. He was known for his courage in single combat and his successful sieges of fortified cities, earning him the nickname “the Sword of Rome.”  
• The biography recounts Marcellus’s early military career, including his victory over the Gauls in northern Italy, for which he was awarded the spolia opima (the armor stripped from an enemy commander killed in single combat by a Roman commander).  
• Plutarch details Marcellus’s crucial role in the defense of Nola against Hannibal’s forces, a significant early Roman success in the war.
• The biography extensively covers the siege of Syracuse (214-212 BCE), a major turning point in Marcellus’s career. Plutarch vividly describes the ingenious defenses devised by Archimedes, which initially thwarted the Roman efforts, and Marcellus’s eventual capture of the city.
• Plutarch also recounts the tragic circumstances of Archimedes’s death during the sack of Syracuse, despite Marcellus’s orders to spare the renowned mathematician.
• The biography discusses Marcellus’s subsequent campaigns against Hannibal in Italy, highlighting his strategic acumen and his ability to engage the Carthaginian general effectively, even if not always decisively.
• The biography concludes with Marcellus’s death in an ambush in Italy. Plutarch portrays him as a formidable Roman commander who played a vital role in Rome’s struggle against Hannibal.

Comparison of Pelopidas and Marcellus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two military leaders who achieved significant successes in different contexts and against different adversaries:  

• Similarities: Plutarch notes the exceptional courage and military prowess of both Pelopidas and Marcellus. Both were known for their personal bravery in battle and their ability to inspire their troops. Both played crucial roles in major conflicts of their time, leading their respective states to significant victories.
• Differences: Pelopidas operated in the complex and often shifting alliances of the Greek city-states, primarily against Spartan power and various tyrants. Marcellus fought against the formidable Hannibal and the Carthaginian forces during a major external threat to Rome.  
• Pelopidas’s leadership was closely intertwined with his friendship and collaboration with Epaminondas, forming a powerful Theban partnership. Marcellus operated within the Roman military and political system, often independently.  
• While both were successful in siege warfare (Pelopidas in Thessaly, Marcellus at Syracuse), Marcellus’s siege of Syracuse is particularly famous due to Archimedes’s defenses.  
• Pelopidas’s legacy is primarily tied to the rise and relatively short-lived dominance of Thebes in Greece. Marcellus is remembered as a key figure in Rome’s eventual victory over Hannibal, a conflict with far more lasting consequences for the Mediterranean world.  
• Plutarch seems to suggest that both men were exemplary military leaders in their own right, demonstrating courage, strategic thinking, and a commitment to their states. However, the scale and long-term impact of Marcellus’s achievements within the context of the Second Punic War arguably give him a more prominent place in history.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the qualities of effective military leadership in different historical settings, highlighting the courage, strategic skill, and dedication required to lead armies and shape the destinies of nations in times of war.

 

Plutarch: Pelopidas and Marcellus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Pelopidas and Marcellus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Pelopidas (Theban)	Marcellus (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Traits	Valiant, laborious, passionate, high-spirited warrior.	Valiant, laborious, passionate, high-spirited warrior (“Sword of Rome”).	Plutarch notes their natures and dispositions were remarkably similar in terms of martial virtue.
Key Military Achievements	Liberating Thebes (stealth/daring), victories at Tegyra & Leuctra (vs. Spartans).	Winning spolia opima (vs. Gallic king), capture of Syracuse, fighting Hannibal.	Both had glorious victories against formidable foes. Compares Pelopidas’s cunning liberation & undefeated record (as commander) vs. Marcellus’s unique spolia opima & greater number of wins.
Manner of Death	Died charging the tyrant Alexander of Pherae in battle, driven by righteous anger.	Died carelessly in an ambush by Hannibal’s forces during reconnaissance.	Central Point: Both died perhaps rashly. Plutarch finds Pelopidas’s death in combat against a tyrant more excusable/fitting than Marcellus’s death through lack of caution for a seasoned commander.
Prudence vs. Fighting Spirit	Eagerness for battle & passionate hatred of tyrant led to final charge.	Aggressiveness & perhaps overconfidence led to insufficient caution in scouting.	Both allowed their fighting spirit to override necessary prudence for a commander, sacrificing themselves unnecessarily.
Clemency in War	Generally noted (with Epaminondas) for not slaughtering citizens or enslaving cities.	Noted for committing great slaughter in many cities he captured (e.g., Syracuse).	Plutarch explicitly contrasts their approaches, favoring the Thebans’ relative clemency.
Posthumous Honor	Buried with great honor by the Thessalian allies for whom he died fighting.	Given honorable burial rites even by his enemy, Hannibal.	Plutarch finds honor from grateful allies noble, but suggests honor from an enemy (like Hannibal for Marcellus) might be a greater testament to pure admired virtue.
Plutarch’s Central Lesson	A great warrior whose death, though rash, occurred in a noble cause against tyranny.	A great warrior whose death resulted from carelessness unfitting his rank and experience.	Both serve as cautionary examples against commanders needlessly risking their lives; Marcellus’s death judged more negatively as a lapse in leadership prudence.

 

Plutarch: Aristides and Marcus Cato (the Elder)

Aristides Pictures

Marcus Cato (the Elder) Pictures

Aristides and Marcus Cato (the Elder) YouTube Video

Biblical Justice | Aristides & Ancient Philosophy | Famous Men …

The Life of Marcus Cato by Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Aristides and Life of Marcus Cato (the Elder)

Plutarch’s Life of Aristides and Life of Marcus Cato (the Elder) offer a study in contrasting styles of integrity and public service in Athens and Rome, respectively. Aristides, known as “the Just,” embodied a reputation for unwavering fairness and honesty in Athenian politics. Marcus Cato, on the other hand, was a stern and principled Roman statesman known for his traditionalism, his incorruptibility, and his forceful advocacy for Roman values.  

Life of Aristides:

• Plutarch portrays Aristides as an Athenian statesman and general renowned for his exceptional integrity and fairness, earning him the famous epithet “the Just.”  
• The biography recounts his early political career, his rivalry with Themistocles, and the legendary story of his ostracism, where an illiterate citizen, unaware of who Aristides was, asked him to write “Aristides” on his ostracon, simply because he was tired of hearing him called “the Just.” Aristides calmly complied.  
• Plutarch highlights Aristides’s crucial role in the Delian League, where his fairness in assessing the contributions of the allied states earned him their trust and solidified Athens’s leadership in the early stages of the league.  
• The biography details Aristides’s military service, including his participation in the Battle of Marathon and the Battle of Salamis, where he put aside his personal rivalry with Themistocles for the sake of Athens.
• Plutarch emphasizes Aristides’s unwavering commitment to justice and his resistance to corruption and personal gain, even when in positions of great power and responsibility as the overseer of the Delian League’s treasury.  
• The biography concludes with Aristides’s death in relative poverty, a testament to his integrity and his focus on public service rather than personal enrichment. He is remembered as a paragon of justice and unselfish leadership in Athenian history.  

Life of Marcus Cato (the Elder):

• Plutarch presents Marcus Porcius Cato, known as Cato the Elder or Cato the Censor, as a quintessential Roman of the old school, embodying traditional Roman virtues of austerity, discipline, and unwavering patriotism.
• The biography recounts Cato’s rise through the Roman ranks, emphasizing his military service, his governorships, and his eventual election as censor, a powerful office responsible for overseeing public morals and state finances.
• Plutarch highlights Cato’s stern moral stance and his constant advocacy against what he perceived as the corrupting influences of Hellenistic culture and luxury on Roman society. His famous phrase, “Carthago delenda est” (“Carthage must be destroyed”), reflects his unwavering determination regarding Rome’s enemies.
• The biography details Cato’s strict and often severe enforcement of traditional Roman values during his censorship, his scrutiny of public officials, and his efforts to curb extravagance and promote thrift.
• Plutarch also discusses Cato’s literary contributions, including his Origines (a history of Rome) and his writings on agriculture, reflecting his practical and traditionalist outlook.
• The biography concludes with Cato’s long and influential life, portraying him as a formidable figure who championed Roman tradition and incorruptibility in the face of changing times. He is remembered as a symbol of Roman virtue and a powerful voice for his conservative ideals.

Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato (the Elder):

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two individuals renowned for their integrity and commitment to their respective states, while also noting their differing styles and approaches:

• Similarities: Plutarch underscores the shared commitment to justice and incorruptibility that characterized both Aristides and Cato. Both men were known for their straightforwardness, their resistance to personal gain at the expense of the public good, and their willingness to uphold high moral standards in their public lives. They both wielded significant influence in their respective societies based on their reputations for virtue.
• Differences: Aristides’s justice was often seen as gentle and impartial, earning him the moniker “the Just” through consensus and popular recognition. Cato’s approach to morality and justice was more stern, critical, and actively interventionist, particularly during his censorship.
• Aristides operated within the democratic framework of Athens, navigating political rivalries with fairness. Cato functioned within the Roman Republic, wielding the authority of various offices, including the powerful censorship, to enforce his traditionalist views.
• While both were dedicated to the welfare of their states, Aristides’s primary focus was on maintaining fairness and unity within the Delian League, while Cato’s was on preserving traditional Roman virtues and strength against perceived internal and external threats.
• Plutarch seems to present both men as models of integrity but highlights the contrasting ways in which that integrity was expressed and applied within their different cultural and political contexts. Aristides embodies a more passive and universally acknowledged justice, while Cato represents a more active and sometimes confrontational enforcement of traditional morality and Roman values.

Through these biographies, Plutarch illustrates that integrity in public service can manifest in different forms, shaped by the individual’s temperament and the specific needs and values of their society. Both Aristides and Cato serve as reminders of the enduring importance of honesty and principle in effective and respected leadership.

 

Plutarch: Aristides and Marcus Cato (the Elder) Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Aristides (“the Just”) and Marcus Cato the Elder (the Censor) based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Aristides (Athens)	Marcus Cato the Elder (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Foundation	Rose to prominence through personal virtue and industry, not primarily birth or wealth.	Rose to prominence (“new man”) through personal virtue, industry, and adherence to tradition.	Both exemplified achieving high honor through character and effort.
Defining Virtue	Justice (Dikaiosyne) – Unwavering fairness and equity.	Temperance (Sophrosyne) & Severity – Austerity, self-control, strict adherence to Mos Maiorum (ancestral customs).	Plutarch pairs them as exemplars of core civic virtues, contrasting Athenian justice with Roman traditional discipline.
Integrity & Attitude to Wealth	Incorruptible; lived and died famously poor, making justice seem unprofitable to some.	Incorruptible; practiced and enforced austerity/frugality; managed own estate effectively.	Both were incorruptible. Plutarch defends Aristides’ poverty as noble but notes Cato’s practical approach benefited his descendants more.
Political Style & Temperament	Calm, consistent, fair, impartial, perhaps aloof; free from envy.	Stern, combative, persistent, prosecutorial, sharp-tongued; prone to envy and self-praise.	Contrasts Aristides’ political gentleness (linked to lack of ambition) with Cato’s constant combativeness, necessary perhaps for his role as Censor but less amiable.
Handling Opposition / Resilience	Suffered political defeat (ostracism) despite his virtue, due to factionalism (Themistocles).	Battled powerful opponents lifelong but maintained position, aided by forceful eloquence.	Cato showed greater resilience in navigating Roman political conflict throughout his life.
Ambition & Envy	Portrayed as free from personal ambition and envy; assisted rivals (Themistocles).	Seen as prone to envy (opposing Scipio) and boasting, though highly patriotic.	Aristides’ lack of ambition is praised as conducive to fairness; Cato’s combativeness is linked partly to ambition/envy.
Impact of Key Actions	Crucial roles in major Greek victories (Marathon, Salamis, Plataea); established fair Delian League assessment.	Military success early, later focused on censorship, preserving Roman morals, and relentless opposition to Carthage.	Plutarch views Aristides’ specific historical contributions (saving Greece, founding League) as more singularly glorious and impactful than Cato’s actions for an already great Rome.
Completeness of Virtue	Embodied justice is almost perfect, but poverty perhaps neglects family practicality.	Embodied traditional Roman virtue effectively, but severity bordered on harshness; late marriage seen as unbecoming.	Plutarch admires both but subtly questions if either represented all virtues perfectly; Aristides lacked practicality, Cato lacked gentleness.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Paragon of Justice, essential for Athenian integrity and Hellenic unity.	Indispensable guardian of Roman tradition and morals, necessary for his time.	Both deeply respected as pillars of virtue against corruption, representing different but essential facets of good citizenship in their respective contexts.

 

Plutarch: Philopoemen and Titus Flamininus

Philopoemen Pictures

Titus Flamininus Pictures

Philopoemen and Titus Flamininus YouTube Video

The Life of Philopœmen by Plutarch

The Life of Titus Flamininus by Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Philopoemen and Life of Titus Flamininus

Plutarch’s Life of Philopoemen and Life of Titus Quinctius Flamininus offer a study in leadership and the complexities of navigating the political landscape of Greece during the Hellenistic period, a time of shifting alliances and Roman influence. Philopoemen, a prominent leader of the Achaean League, championed Greek independence and military strength. Titus Flamininus, a Roman general and statesman, played a key role in Rome’s involvement in Greece and is remembered for proclaiming the “freedom of the Greeks.”

Life of Philopoemen:

• Plutarch portrays Philopoemen as a man of noble Arcadian birth, renowned for his military prowess, his dedication to the Achaean League, and his unwavering commitment to Greek liberty and unity.
• The biography recounts Philopoemen’s early military service and his rise to prominence within the Achaean League, a confederation of Greek city-states in the Peloponnese.
• Plutarch emphasizes Philopoemen’s significant military reforms, transforming the Achaean League’s army into a formidable fighting force capable of challenging larger powers. He is credited with introducing more effective armor and training methods.
• The biography details Philopoemen’s military successes, including his victories against the Spartans under Machanidas and Nabis, which solidified the Achaean League’s power in the Peloponnese. He was often referred to as “the last of the Greeks” for his dedication to Greek independence in the face of rising Roman influence.
• Plutarch also discusses Philopoemen’s political leadership within the Achaean League, his efforts to maintain its unity and autonomy, and his resistance to undue Roman interference in Greek affairs.
• The biography concludes with Philopoemen’s death during a conflict with Messene. Plutarch mourns the loss of a great Greek leader who consistently fought for the freedom and strength of the Achaean League and the broader Greek world.

Life of Titus Flamininus:

• Plutarch presents Titus Quinctius Flamininus as a charismatic and philhellenic Roman statesman and general who played a crucial role in Rome’s intervention in Greece during the Second Macedonian War.
• The biography recounts Flamininus’s unexpected appointment to command the Roman forces in Greece despite his relative youth and lack of extensive military experience.
• Plutarch emphasizes Flamininus’s charm, his diplomatic skills, and his genuine admiration for Greek culture, which allowed him to build alliances and gain the support of various Greek factions.
• The biography details Flamininus’s military campaign against King Philip V of Macedon, culminating in the decisive Roman victory at the Battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BCE).
• Plutarch famously recounts Flamininus’s proclamation at the Isthmian Games in Corinth, declaring the “freedom of the Greeks,” a move that was met with great enthusiasm and enhanced Rome’s reputation as a liberator.
• The biography also discusses Flamininus’s subsequent involvement in Greek affairs, his efforts to establish stable political arrangements, and his interactions with various Greek leaders and factions. While seemingly a benefactor, Plutarch also hints at the underlying Roman interests and the limitations of this “freedom.”
• The biography concludes with Flamininus’s return to Rome and his later life. He is remembered as a significant figure in the early stages of Roman influence in Greece, a complex figure who was both a liberator and an agent of Roman power.

Comparison of Philopoemen and Titus Flamininus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two individuals who significantly impacted the political landscape of Greece in the Hellenistic era, albeit from different perspectives and with different goals:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both Philopoemen and Flamininus were influential leaders who played key roles in the affairs of Greece. Both were effective in their own ways – Philopoemen militarily and politically within the Achaean League, and Flamininus through a combination of military success and diplomacy on behalf of Rome. Both were seen as champions of certain aspects of Greek freedom, though their understandings and goals differed.
• Differences: Philopoemen was a Greek leader dedicated to the independence and strength of the Greek city-states, particularly through the Achaean League, and wary of foreign interference, especially Roman. Flamininus was a Roman general who acted on behalf of Roman interests, even while proclaiming Greek freedom. His actions ultimately paved the way for greater Roman influence in the region.
• Philopoemen’s power base was within the Achaean League and his strength lay in his military reforms and his commitment to Greek autonomy. Flamininus’s power stemmed from the might of Rome and his ability to navigate Greek politics through diplomacy and military force.
• Plutarch highlights the contrasting long-term outcomes of their actions. Philopoemen’s efforts to maintain Greek independence ultimately proved unsuccessful in the face of rising Roman power. Flamininus’s actions, while initially appearing benevolent, were a step towards the eventual Roman domination of Greece.
• Plutarch seems to present Philopoemen as a more straightforward and consistently principled figure, dedicated to a clear ideal of Greek liberty. Flamininus is portrayed as a more complex figure, whose philhellenism was intertwined with the advancement of Roman power, making his motives and impact more ambiguous in the long run.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the intricate dynamics of power and influence in the Hellenistic world, particularly the burgeoning impact of Rome on Greece. He contrasts the leadership of a Greek champion of independence with that of a Roman figure who, while seemingly a liberator, ultimately served the interests of a rising empire.

 

Plutarch: Philopoemen and Titus Flamininus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Philopoemen and Titus Quinctius Flamininus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Philopoemen (Greek/Achaean)	Titus Quinctius Flamininus (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Primary Role Regarding Greece	“Last of the Greeks”; Fought to maintain Greek (Achaean) military strength and independence from within.	Roman general/diplomat; Defeated Macedon, proclaimed Greek “freedom,” organized Greece under Roman influence.	Fundamental contrast: the internal Greek champion versus the external Roman power acting upon Greece.
Nature of Principal Wars/Actions	Primarily intra-Greek conflicts (vs. Sparta, tyrants); reformed Achaean army.	War against a foreign power (Macedon); diplomatic settlement of Greek affairs.	Philopoemen focused on internal Greek military/political matters; Flamininus on defeating external power (Macedon) and establishing Roman order.
Character & Style	Austere, stern, focused on military virtue, perhaps harsh, less concerned with personal glory.	Affable, diplomatic, skilled orator, Philhellene (Greek-lover), actively sought glory (philotimos).	Contrasts the rugged, dedicated Greek warrior with the more polished, glory-seeking, culturally adept Roman statesman.
Motivation / Ambition	Driven by patriotism for Achaea and desire for Greek military competence/independence.	Driven by Roman duty, personal ambition for glory/triumph, and Philhellenism (serving Roman ends).	Philopoemen’s motivation seen as purely patriotic Greek; Flamininus’s as a mix of Roman interest, personal ambition, and genuine liking for Greek culture.
Virtue vs. Fortune Analysis	Great skill and virtue acknowledged, but perhaps less dramatically favored by fortune than Flamininus in key moments.	Acknowledged skill and virtue, but his great proclamation and overall success also involved favorable circumstances/Roman power (fortune).	Plutarch explores this balance for both, but perhaps emphasizes the element of fortune/opportunity more in Flamininus’s grandest gestures (like the Isthmian proclamation).
Benefits Conferred upon Greeks	Strengthened Achaeans militarily; provided strong leadership (temporary).	Liberated cities from Macedonian yoke; established peace (under Roman hegemony).	Plutarch weighs the value: Philopoemen aimed for self-sufficiency; Flamininus provided immediate liberation/peace, but within a framework of dependency on Rome.
Death & Legacy	Died tragically as a prisoner of war, poisoned by fellow Greeks (Messenians). Remembered as the last great independent Greek leader.	Completed career successfully, enjoyed honors in Rome, died (presumably) naturally. Remembered as the Roman who “freed” Greece.	Highlights the pathos of the “last Greek’s” end versus the successful conclusion of the Roman commander’s career, reflecting the shift in power.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Deep respect for his patriotism, skill, and lifelong struggle (“last of the Greeks”), despite tragic end.	Admires his military/diplomatic success, philhellenism, and grand proclamation, while recognizing him as an agent of Roman power.	Compares two great men operating in the critical period of Greece’s loss of independence, highlighting the different virtues and outcomes shaped by their contexts.

 

Plutarch: Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius

Pyrrhus Pictures

Gaius Marius Pictures

Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius YouTube Video

Pyrrhus and Pyrrhic War – Kings and Generals DOCUMENTARY

Gaius Marius: Inventing the Roman Army

 

Plutarch: Life of Pyrrhus and Life of Gaius Marius

Plutarch’s Life of Pyrrhus and Life of Gaius Marius offer a study in ambitious military leaders whose careers were marked by both brilliant successes and ultimate instability. Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, was renowned for his military genius and his costly victories against the Romans, giving rise to the term “Pyrrhic victory.” Gaius Marius was a celebrated Roman general and statesman who played a crucial role in Roman military reforms and the Jugurthine and Cimbrian Wars, but whose later career was marred by political violence and rivalry.  

Life of Pyrrhus:

• Plutarch portrays Pyrrhus as a king of Epirus with grand ambitions, a charismatic leader known for his personal courage and his innovative military tactics, particularly his use of war elephants.  
• The biography recounts Pyrrhus’s early military exploits and his involvement in the affairs of the Greek colonies in southern Italy, who sought his aid against the rising power of Rome.  
• Plutarch details Pyrrhus’s campaigns against the Romans, including his victories at Heraclea and Asculum, battles won at such a high cost that they gave rise to the expression “Pyrrhic victory” – a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is almost equivalent to a defeat.  
• The biography also covers Pyrrhus’s involvement in Sicily, where he was initially welcomed as a liberator from Carthaginian influence but eventually alienated the Greek cities due to his increasingly autocratic behavior.  
• Plutarch recounts Pyrrhus’s return to Italy and his continued struggles against the Romans, as well as his later campaigns in Greece, including his involvement in the succession dispute in Macedon and his ultimately fatal conflict in Argos.  
• The biography concludes with Pyrrhus’s death, highlighting his restless ambition and his tendency to overextend himself, ultimately preventing him from establishing a lasting empire despite his military brilliance.

Life of Gaius Marius:

• Plutarch presents Gaius Marius as a self-made Roman general and statesman who rose through the ranks due to his military talent and his appeal to the plebeians.
• The biography recounts Marius’s early military service and his crucial role as a legate in the Jugurthine War in Numidia, where his effectiveness led to his election as consul over more established patrician candidates.  
• Plutarch emphasizes Marius’s significant military reforms, including the abolition of the property requirement for legionary service, which allowed large numbers of landless citizens to join the army, creating a more professional and loyal force. He also standardized legionary equipment.  
• The biography details Marius’s successful campaigns against the invading Cimbri and Teutones, Germanic tribes that posed a grave threat to Rome. His decisive victories earned him immense popularity and multiple consulships, an unprecedented occurrence.  
• Plutarch also covers Marius’s involvement in Roman politics, including his alliance with popular tribunes and his rivalry with patrician figures like Sulla. The biography describes the increasing political instability in Rome during this period.
• The biography culminates in the brutal civil war between Marius and Sulla, Marius’s temporary seizure of Rome and the bloody purges that followed, and his eventual death shortly after gaining control of the city. Plutarch portrays Marius’s later years as marked by ruthlessness and a descent into political violence.

Comparison of Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two ambitious military leaders whose careers, despite initial glory, ended in instability and conflict:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes the exceptional military talent and personal courage of both Pyrrhus and Marius. Both men achieved significant military successes and were highly regarded by their soldiers. Both also displayed considerable ambition and a desire for power and lasting fame. Their careers were marked by periods of great achievement followed by reversals and ultimately violent ends.  
• Differences: Pyrrhus was a hereditary monarch driven by dynastic ambitions and a desire for conquest in the Hellenistic world. Marius was a Roman who rose through the ranks of a republican system based on military merit and political maneuvering.  
• Pyrrhus’s conflicts were primarily against external powers (Rome, Carthage, Macedonian factions), while Marius’s later career was defined by internal Roman political struggles and civil war.
• While both were innovative in military affairs (Pyrrhus with elephants, Marius with legionary reforms), the context and impact of their innovations differed. Marius’s reforms had a more lasting impact on the structure and loyalty of the Roman army.  
• Plutarch seems to suggest that both men were undone by their ambition and their inability to manage their successes. Pyrrhus’s constant pursuit of new conquests led to overextension and ultimately his demise. Marius’s later years were marred by a descent into political violence and revenge, tarnishing his earlier achievements.  

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the complexities of ambition, military glory, and political power. He highlights how even the most brilliant and successful leaders can be consumed by their desires, leading to instability and ultimately tragic ends for themselves and their states. The lives of Pyrrhus and Marius serve as cautionary tales about the potential pitfalls of unchecked ambition and the corrosive effects of power.

 

Plutarch: Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius Compared. Table

Please Note: The formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost for the pair of Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the themes and parallels Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two highly ambitious and militarily successful figures.

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Pyrrhus of Epirus	Gaius Marius (Rome)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Core Traits	Exceptional military commander, personally brave, driven by immense ambition, restless.	Exceptional military commander, personally brave, driven by immense ambition, politically tenacious.	Plutarch paired them as preeminent military leaders whose immense ambition ultimately proved destructive or led to tragic ends.
Primary Military Focus/ Achievements	Brilliant tactician; victories against Romans (costly), Macedonians, Sicilians; warfare across Mediterranean.	Defeated Jugurtha, saved Rome from Cimbri & Teutones; major army reforms (novus homo general).	Both achieved great military renown against formidable enemies. Pyrrhus famed for tactical skill; Marius for saving Rome from specific threats & reforming the army.
Nature & Aim of Ambition	Restless pursuit of kingdoms and glory across different lands (Italy, Sicily, Greece, Macedon); unable to consolidate.	Intense focus on achieving supreme power within Rome (repeated consulships, military commands); led to civil war against rivals (Sulla).	Pyrrhus’s ambition was expansionist but perhaps less focused; Marius’s ambition turned inward, ultimately tearing apart the Roman state.
Key Character Flaw(s)	Impetuosity, restlessness, perhaps lacking strategic patience or political skill for consolidation.	Intense jealousy/rivalry, increasing cruelty, savagery, and vengefulness, especially in later life and civil wars.	While both could be harsh, Plutarch portrays Marius’s later character as degenerating into extreme cruelty against fellow citizens, likely judged more severely.
Rise to Power / Political Context	Inherited kingdom (Epirus), operated as Hellenistic monarch vying for territory/influence.	Rose from relative obscurity (novus homo) through military merit; operated within (and ultimately subverted) the Roman Republic.	Contrasts the Hellenistic monarch with the Roman “new man” who challenged the aristocracy.
Relationship with State / Civil Conflict	Sought to conquer other states; wars were external (though involving Greeks).	Engaged in brutal civil war against Roman rivals (Sulla), leading to massacres and proscriptions within Rome itself.	Marius’s ambition directly caused internal devastation to his own state, a point Plutarch likely viewed with particular severity compared to Pyrrhus’s external wars.
Manner of Death	Died ignominiously in street fighting in Argos (killed by a roof tile).	Died during his seventh consulship amidst the chaos and bloodshed of civil war, consumed by bitterness.	Both met ends unfitting their military greatness, seen as consequences of their restless, ambitious, and ultimately self-destructive natures.
Plutarch’s Implied Judgment Point	Brilliant but unstable general whose ambition outstripped his ability to hold gains.	Savior of Rome who devolved into a cruel tyrant, devastating the Republic through personal ambition and rivalry.	Both serve as cautionary tales about ambition. Marius’s turn to civil war and extreme cruelty likely receives Plutarch’s harsher moral condemnation.

 

Plutarch: Lysander and Sulla

Lysander Pictures

Sulla Pictures

Lysander and Sulla YouTube Video

Lysander: The SPARTAN who conquered ATHENS

Rise of Sulla – Ancient Roman History DOCUMENTARY

 

Plutarch: Life of Lysander and Life of Sulla

Plutarch’s Life of Lysander and Life of Lucius Cornelius Sulla offer a stark study in ambition, ruthlessness, and the exercise of power in the late classical Greek world and the late Roman Republic, respectively. Both were highly successful military commanders who achieved immense power and influence in their societies, but their methods were often controversial and their legacies complex.

Life of Lysander:

• Plutarch portrays Lysander as an ambitious and cunning Spartan admiral who played a crucial role in Sparta’s final victory over Athens in the Peloponnesian War.  
• The biography recounts Lysander’s rise to prominence in the Spartan navy, his strategic brilliance, and his ability to cultivate relationships with key figures in the Persian Empire, securing vital financial support for Sparta.
• Plutarch details Lysander’s decisive naval victory at Aegospotami, which crippled the Athenian fleet and effectively ended the Peloponnesian War.  
• The biography highlights Lysander’s actions after the war, including the establishment of Spartan hegemony over Greece, the imposition of harsh terms on Athens, and the installation of pro-Spartan oligarchies (the “Thirty Tyrants” in Athens).  
• Plutarch discusses Lysander’s ambition and his attempts to consolidate his own power and influence within Sparta, often bypassing traditional Spartan institutions. He is portrayed as innovative but also as potentially undermining the Spartan system.
• The biography concludes with Lysander’s death during the Boeotian War, highlighting the consequences of his ambition and the resistance his dominance had generated among other Greek states.

Life of Sulla:

• Plutarch presents Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix as a brilliant but ruthless Roman general and statesman who played a pivotal role in the late Roman Republic, marked by civil war and his unprecedented dictatorship.  
• The biography recounts Sulla’s early military successes, including his role in the Jugurthine and Cimbrian Wars, and his command in the Social War.
• Plutarch details Sulla’s rivalry with Gaius Marius and the outbreak of the first Roman civil war, triggered by the command against Mithridates. Sulla’s march on Rome was a watershed moment in Roman history.
• The biography covers Sulla’s successful campaigns against Mithridates in the East and his triumphant return to Rome, where he seized absolute power and instituted brutal proscriptions, eliminating his political enemies and confiscating their property.
• Plutarch describes Sulla’s reforms aimed at restoring the power of the Senate and limiting the power of the tribunes, attempting to stabilize the Roman Republic according to his conservative vision.
• The biography concludes with Sulla’s voluntary abdication of his dictatorship and his death shortly thereafter, leaving behind a legacy of immense power, brutal violence, and significant constitutional changes that ultimately failed to prevent the Republic’s demise.

Comparison of Lysander and Sulla:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two individuals who achieved great power through military success and whose actions had profound and often negative consequences for their respective states:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes the exceptional military talent, ambition, and ruthlessness shared by Lysander and Sulla. Both men achieved decisive victories in major conflicts (Lysander in the Peloponnesian War, Sulla in the civil war and against Mithridates) and used their military power to exert significant political control over their societies. Both were innovative in their approaches and willing to disregard traditional norms to achieve their goals. Both left legacies marked by violence and political upheaval.  
• Differences: Lysander operated within the context of the Greek city-state system and Spartan oligarchy, while Sulla acted within the more complex and evolving Roman Republic. Lysander’s ambition manifested in establishing Spartan hegemony and his own influence within that framework. Sulla’s ambition led him to challenge the fundamental institutions of the Roman Republic and establish a personal dictatorship.  
• Lysander’s ruthlessness was evident in the harsh terms imposed on Athens and the support of oppressive oligarchies. Sulla’s ruthlessness was displayed in the brutal proscriptions and the systematic elimination of his political opponents. The scale of Sulla’s violence was arguably greater due to the larger scale of the Roman state and the intensity of the civil war.  
• While both aimed to establish a form of stability after periods of conflict, their visions differed. Lysander sought to maintain Spartan dominance. Sulla aimed to restore the authority of the Senate and a more conservative form of republicanism, though his methods undermined the very principles he claimed to uphold.  
• Plutarch seems to present both men as cautionary figures whose ambition and disregard for traditional norms and the well-being of their opponents ultimately led to further instability and suffering in their respective societies. Their lives illustrate the dangers of unchecked power and the corrosive effects of ruthlessness in the pursuit of political goals.

 

Plutarch: Lysander and Sulla Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Lysander and Sulla based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Lysander (Spartan)	Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Foundation	Founder of his own greatness; achieved high office with citizen consent initially.	Founder of his own greatness; rose amidst civil strife and factionalism.	Both achieved great prominence through their own efforts and military success, though in different political contexts (stable Sparta initially vs. tumultuous Rome for Sulla).
Military Achievements	Decisive naval victories (e.g., Aegospotami) ending the Peloponnesian War; Siege of Athens.	Numerous major victories (vs. Mithridates, civil wars); captured Rome twice, sacked Athens’ Piraeus.	Both were highly successful commanders. Plutarch gives Sulla the edge in the number and scale of battles won against diverse and formidable enemies (Marius, Mithridates, Italian rebels).
Ruthlessness / Cruelty	Ruthless towards defeated Athenians; imposed harsh oligarchies (decarchies); many actions for benefit of comrades.	Extreme cruelty during civil wars: invented proscriptions, massacres, ruthless towards citizens and enemies alike.	Both were ruthless, but Plutarch emphasizes Sulla’s greater scale of cruelty, particularly against fellow Romans during the civil wars.
Ambition / Relationship with Power	Sought personal power/influence beyond Spartan norms; attempted to alter kingship; held power repeatedly but formally relinquished command at times.	Seized absolute power as Dictator through force; held command for ten years continuously.	Both intensely ambitious. Lysander manipulated within/against tradition; Sulla overtly seized absolute control.
Relationship with Supreme Power (Key Contrast)	Died while still actively maneuvering for power/influence.	Voluntarily resigned the Dictatorship after enacting reforms and eliminating enemies.	Plutarch finds Sulla’s voluntary resignation of absolute power highly remarkable and a crucial point of distinction, suggesting a form of ultimate self-control or satiety Lysander lacked.
Relationship with Tradition / Laws	Attempted to subvert Spartan tradition (kingship rules) through persuasion/intrigue.	Overtly broke tradition (marching on Rome) but framed his reforms as restoring traditional Senate authority.	Lysander worked against tradition; Sulla claimed to restore it, despite using unprecedented violence.
Attitude to Wealth / Luxury	Personally austere/indifferent to wealth, but introduced gold/luxury to Sparta, corrupting it.	Lived lavishly, especially later in life; enacted temperance laws while being personally licentious.	Both had paradoxical relationships with wealth/luxury: Lysander corrupted Sparta with what he personally scorned; Sulla imposed austerity he didn’t practice.
Manner of Death	Died in battle during a relatively minor engagement (Haliartus).	Died (likely of illness/complications) after voluntarily resigning supreme power.	Plutarch contrasts their ends: Lysander died still striving; Sulla died after having laid down ultimate power.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Fewer personal failings/vices (more self-controlled/moderate personally).	More numerous/glorious military successes, but vastly more cruel.	Plutarch concludes Sulla had greater military success, but Lysander committed fewer personal faults. Sulla’s resignation remains his most striking, differentiating act.

 

Plutarch: Cimon and Lucullus

Cimon Pictures

Lucullus Pictures

Cimon and Lucullus YouTube Video

Plutarch’s Life of Cimon discussed

The Life of Lucullus by Plutarch

 

Plutarch: Life of Cimon and Life of Lucullus

Plutarch’s Life of Cimon and Life of Lucius Licinius Lucullus offer a study in aristocratic leadership during periods of Athenian naval power and Roman expansion, respectively. Both men were wealthy and well-connected, achieved significant military and political success, and were known for their generosity and refined tastes, yet their approaches and legacies differed.

Life of Cimon:

• Plutarch portrays Cimon as a noble Athenian general and statesman, the son of Miltiades (the hero of Marathon), who played a crucial role in the Delian League’s transformation into the Athenian Empire.  
• The biography recounts Cimon’s early military successes, particularly his naval victories against the Persians, liberating Greek cities in the Aegean and solidifying Athenian naval dominance. His victories at the Eurymedon River were particularly significant.  
• Plutarch highlights Cimon’s generous nature and his popular policies in Athens, including providing public amenities and entertainment, which contributed to a period of prosperity and peace. He is depicted as a benevolent aristocrat who used his wealth for the benefit of the city.  
• The biography also discusses Cimon’s more conservative political leanings and his occasional clashes with more radical democratic factions in Athens. He favored a strong relationship with Sparta, a policy that eventually fell out of favor.  
• Plutarch recounts Cimon’s eventual ostracism from Athens, a common fate for prominent politicians in the Athenian democracy, and his later recall to lead Athenian forces during a critical juncture in the war against Persia.  
• The biography concludes with Cimon’s death during a campaign in Cyprus, acknowledging his significant contributions to Athenian power and his reputation for integrity and generosity.  

Life of Lucullus:

• Plutarch presents Lucius Licinius Lucullus as a wealthy and cultured Roman nobleman who distinguished himself as a military commander and administrator during the late Roman Republic.  
• The biography recounts Lucullus’s early military service, including his role in the Social War and his command in the First Mithridatic War, where he initially served under Sulla.  
• Plutarch details Lucullus’s successful campaigns against Mithridates VI of Pontus in the East, highlighting his strategic acumen and his ability to maintain discipline and supply his troops in challenging circumstances. His sieges and battles in Asia Minor and Armenia brought significant Roman victories.  
• The biography emphasizes Lucullus’s immense wealth, acquired during his campaigns, and his lavish lifestyle upon his return to Rome. He became renowned for his opulent villas, his extravagant banquets, and his patronage of the arts and sciences.
• Plutarch also discusses the political opposition Lucullus faced in Rome, fueled by envy of his wealth and criticism of his prolonged command and perceived self-interest. He eventually lost his command due to political maneuvering.
• The biography concludes with Lucullus’s retirement and his continued pursuit of a life of luxury and culture, albeit with a decline in political influence. Plutarch portrays him as a complex figure, a capable general who ultimately prioritized personal enjoyment and intellectual pursuits over continued political and military ambition.

Comparison of Cimon and Lucullus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two aristocratic leaders known for their success, wealth, and generosity, while also highlighting their different priorities and legacies:  

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both Cimon and Lucullus were men of noble birth and considerable wealth who achieved significant military success and were known for their generosity and patronage. Both were figures of refinement and enjoyed a certain level of popularity among their people, at least for a time.
• Differences: Cimon’s primary focus was on public service and the expansion of Athenian power through the Delian League. His wealth was largely used for the benefit of Athens. Lucullus, while a capable military commander, ultimately seemed more interested in personal enrichment and the enjoyment of his vast wealth and cultural pursuits.
• Cimon’s political style was more straightforward, and his downfall was largely due to shifting Athenian political winds and policy disagreements. Lucullus faced more direct political opposition and intrigue in Rome, fueled by his immense wealth and the length of his command.
• While both were successful generals, Cimon’s victories were crucial in establishing Athenian naval dominance and liberating Greek cities from Persia. Lucullus’s campaigns expanded Roman influence in the East and brought significant wealth to Rome and himself.  
• Plutarch seems to present Cimon as a more selfless leader whose primary motivation was the greatness of Athens. Lucullus, while not necessarily malicious, appears more driven by personal ambition and the enjoyment of his acquired wealth and status. His military achievements served as a means to this end.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores different facets of aristocratic leadership. Cimon embodies a more traditional ideal of the wealthy elite serving the state, while Lucullus represents a shift towards greater personal indulgence and the use of public service as a path to private enrichment and cultural pursuits.

 

Plutarch: Cimon and Lucullus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Cimon and Lucullus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Cimon (Athenian)	Lucius Licinius Lucullus (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Foundation	Successful military commander against Eastern “barbarian” powers (Persians).	Successful military commander against Eastern powers (Mithridates, Tigranes).	Both were valiant in war, successful against Eastern foes, gentle in politics (compared to others), and expanded their state’s influence significantly. Both also campaigned in uniquely distant lands for their time.
Military Achievements	Pivotal victories (esp. double land/sea victory at Eurymedon); consolidated Delian League power.	Brilliant campaigns in Asia Minor, Armenia; defeated powerful kings (Mithridates, Tigranes); first Roman to cross Taurus/Tigris with army.	Both highly successful. Plutarch gives Cimon special praise for the simultaneous land/sea victory; acknowledges Lucullus conquered vast territories against formidable kings.
Character & Temperament	Affable, generous, straightforward, popular; though perhaps dissolute in youth, improved with age.	Highly capable, intelligent, disciplined early on; later known for extreme luxury, perhaps less adept at handling troops/politics.	Plutarch notes Cimon improved from a questionable youth, while Lucullus declined from a disciplined youth into luxury. Prefers Cimon’s trajectory (“change for the better”).
Use of Wealth	Used wealth generously for public benefit (e.g., building city walls, public dinners) and popularity.	Amassed vast wealth; known for legendary private luxury, opulence, and magnificent gardens/villas in retirement.	Strong contrast drawn. Cimon’s public generosity praised; Lucullus’s private luxury criticized as potentially excessive and self-indulgent (“wanton”), like spoils of barbarians.
Political Career & Setbacks	Faced political opposition, suffered ostracism (exile) due to pro-Spartan policies, later recalled.	Faced political intrigue from rivals (Pompey), troop dissatisfaction/mutiny led to loss of command and effective retirement.	Both faced political adversity. Cimon returned from exile; Lucullus largely withdrew from public life.
Relationship with Soldiers / Allies	Highly prized by allies, who preferred his leadership, he maintained troop loyalty effectively.	Despised by his own soldiers by the end (due to lengthy campaigns/strictness?), leading to mutiny and loss of command.	Cimon maintained loyalty through goodwill; Lucullus lost it, highlighting Cimon’s superior ability in this aspect according to Plutarch.
End of Career / Life	Died honorably while on campaign commanding the Athenian forces in Cyprus, at height of success.	Retired into opulent private life after losing command; suffered mental decline before death.	Plutarch strongly favors Cimon’s end, dying in service at the peak of his career due to misfortune, over Lucullus’s withdrawal into luxury, which he implies diminished his legacy.
Completeness / Consistency	Life seen as more consistently dedicated to public service and military command.	Life is sharply divided: a brilliant military commander phase followed by a famous luxurious retirement phase.	Cimon’s life presented as a more unified whole dedicated to Athens; Lucullus’s retirement seen as a significant break or falling off.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Highly praised for military success, consistent public spirit, civic generosity, and honorable death.	Admired for immense military talent and initial successes, but criticized for later luxury and withdrawal from public life.	Plutarch clearly prefers Cimon’s overall life and legacy, finding his consistent civic virtue and honorable end superior to Lucullus’s trajectory.

 

Plutarch: Nicias and Marcus Crassus

Nicias Pictures

Marcus Crassus Pictures

Nicias and Marcus Crassus YouTube Video

Nicias – Sicilian Expedition

Marcus Licinius Crassus: The Rise & Fall of the Richest Man …

 

Plutarch: Life of Nicias and Life of Marcus Crassus

Plutarch’s Life of Nicias and Life of Marcus Crassus offer a study in contrasting approaches to leadership and the role of wealth in politics and military affairs in Athens and Rome, respectively. Nicias, a pious and cautious Athenian statesman, is often remembered for his role in the disastrous Sicilian Expedition. Marcus Crassus, one of the wealthiest men in Roman history, used his immense fortune to gain political influence and military commands.  

Life of Nicias:

• Plutarch portrays Nicias as a wealthy and respected Athenian aristocrat who held moderate political views and was known for his piety and cautious approach to public affairs.
• The biography recounts Nicias’s consistent opposition to the aggressive policies advocated by Alcibiades, particularly the Sicilian Expedition, which Nicias foresaw would be a costly and risky endeavor.  
• Despite his reservations, Nicias was appointed as one of the generals for the Sicilian Expedition and, after Alcibiades’s departure, found himself in sole command alongside Lamachus. Plutarch details Nicias’s indecisiveness, his requests for reinforcements, and his eventual tragic failure in Sicily, marked by heavy losses and his own capture and execution.
• Plutarch explores Nicias’s character, highlighting his deep-seated superstition and his reliance on omens and divination, which often influenced his decisions, sometimes to his detriment.  
• The biography reflects on the reasons for Nicias’s downfall, attributing it in part to his lack of decisive leadership, his underestimation of the enemy, and the overwhelming scale of the disaster in Sicily. Despite his personal piety and good intentions, he is ultimately remembered for a catastrophic military failure.  

Life of Marcus Crassus:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Licinius Crassus as one of the wealthiest individuals in Roman history, who leveraged his vast fortune to gain political influence and military commands during the late Roman Republic.
• The biography recounts Crassus’s role in suppressing the Spartacus slave revolt, a military success that brought him considerable prestige and a consulship alongside Pompey.
• Plutarch details Crassus’s constant pursuit of wealth and his involvement in various lucrative ventures, including fire brigades and land speculation. His immense fortune became a defining aspect of his public persona.  
• The biography explores Crassus’s political rivalry with Pompey and his efforts to counterbalance Pompey’s influence through alliances with figures like Julius Caesar, leading to the formation of the First Triumvirate.
• Plutarch recounts Crassus’s ill-fated military expedition to Parthia, driven by a desire for military glory to match his wealth and political standing. His disastrous defeat at the Battle of Carrhae, where he and a large portion of his army were killed, is a central part of his biography.
• The biography reflects on Crassus’s character, portraying him as ambitious, driven by wealth and a yearning for military glory that ultimately exceeded his military capabilities. His avarice and strategic miscalculations led to his ignominious end.

Comparison of Nicias and Marcus Crassus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two wealthy and influential figures from different city-states whose approaches to leadership and the consequences of their actions differed significantly:  

• Similarities: Plutarch notes that both Nicias and Crassus were men of considerable wealth who held prominent positions in their respective societies. Both were involved in significant military endeavors that ultimately ended in disaster for them. Both also faced criticisms regarding their leadership.
• Differences: Nicias’s wealth was inherited and contributed to his social standing and his ability to fund public services and religious dedications, reflecting a more traditional aristocratic role. Crassus actively amassed his immense wealth and used it as a tool for political influence and military advancement, representing a more entrepreneurial and perhaps more self-serving approach.  
• Nicias was known for his caution and piety, albeit sometimes to the point of indecisiveness. Crassus was characterized by his ambition, his drive for wealth and glory, and a willingness to take significant risks.  
• Nicias was thrust into a major military command despite his reservations and ultimately failed due to a combination of strategic errors and misfortune. Crassus actively sought military glory in Parthia, driven by ambition, and his failure was largely attributed to his poor planning and underestimation of the enemy.  
• Plutarch seems to present Nicias as a well-intentioned but ultimately inadequate leader in a critical military situation. Crassus is portrayed as a man whose ambition and greed led him to a disastrous and self-inflicted defeat.  

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the complexities of leadership, the influence of wealth, and the role of character in determining the outcomes of significant historical events. Nicias’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the limitations of caution without decisive action, while Crassus’s life illustrates the dangers of unchecked ambition and the pursuit of glory without sufficient competence.

 

Plutarch: Nicias and Marcus Crassus Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Nicias and Marcus Crassus based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format.

Feature	Nicias (Athenian)	Marcus Crassus (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Outcome	Led a major military expedition (Sicily) that ended in catastrophic defeat and his own death.	Led a major military expedition (Parthia) that ended in catastrophic defeat (Carrhae) and his own death.	Both men brought utter ruin upon their armies and died ignominiously as a direct result of their failed campaigns.
Defining Character Flaw	Excessive Caution, Superstition, Indecisiveness.	Overwhelming Avarice (greed) and Ambition for glory (esp. military glory).	Plutarch contrasts their opposing flaws leading to similar disastrous ends: Nicias undone by fearfulness/piety; Crassus undone by greed/vainglory. He explores which flaw is worse.
Motivation for Final Campaign	Undertook command reluctantly, opposed the expedition, pressured by the state.	Eagerly sought the command out of desire for wealth and military fame to rival Pompey/Caesar.	Plutarch clearly judges Crassus’s motivation (personal greed/ambition) more harshly than Nicias’s reluctant acceptance of duty.
Leadership During Campaign	Hesitant, overly reliant on diviners, missed opportunities, delayed retreat due to eclipse (superstition).	Rash, ignored good counsel, made poor strategic choices, potentially misled by greed (false guides).	Both displayed fatal leadership failures, but stemming from opposite defects: Nicias failed through inaction/delay; Crassus failed through rashness/poor judgment.
Relationship with Wealth	Wealthy, used wealth piously and for public service/political influence conventionally.	Defined by immense wealth and its acquisition, often ruthlessly (proscriptions, speculation); avarice was a primary motivator.	Nicias’s wealth was incidental to his character flaw; Crassus’s avarice was his central character flaw and drove his fatal decisions.
Piety / Superstition	Excessively pious and superstitious, allowing religious fears (eclipse) to dictate military decisions disastrously.	Not particularly noted for piety; driven by worldly gain and glory.	Nicias’s virtue (piety) became a vice in excess; Crassus lacked even the appearance of such constraints, driven purely by avarice/ambition.
Manner of Death	Surrendered after army’s destruction, executed as a prisoner of war in Syracuse.	Killed treacherously during a parley with the Parthians after the defeat at Carrhae.	Both died miserably and shamefully following the disasters they caused.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Pitiable; a decent man whose virtues (caution, piety) became extreme flaws leading to ruin.	More condemnable; his disaster stemmed directly from base motives (greed, vainglory) leading to a reckless, unnecessary war.	Plutarch views both as failures, but likely condemns Crassus more severely due to the inherent vice motivating his actions, whereas Nicias failed through an excess of flawed virtues.

 

Plutarch: Eumenes and Sertorius

Eumenes Pictures

Sertorius Pictures

Eumenes and Sertorius YouTube Video

The Life of Eumenes by Plutarch

Sertorius – Anti-Sulla Rebellion in Spain DOCUMENTARY

 

Plutarch: Life of Eumenes and Life of Sertorius

Plutarch’s Life of Eumenes and Life of Quintus Sertorius offer a study in resourceful and tenacious military leaders who operated in complex and often hostile environments following periods of major political upheaval. Eumenes, a Greek who served various Macedonian successors of Alexander the Great, navigated shifting loyalties and constant warfare. Sertorius, a Roman general, led a long and effective rebellion against the Roman Senate in Spain. Both men were known for their intelligence, their ability to command loyalty in difficult circumstances, and their ultimately tragic ends.  

Life of Eumenes:

• Plutarch portrays Eumenes as a Greek from Cardia who rose to prominence as the secretary and confidant of Philip II and Alexander the Great of Macedon. He was known for his intelligence, his administrative skills, and his loyalty.  
• The biography recounts Eumenes’s crucial role in the chaotic period following Alexander’s death, serving as a general for various Successors (Diadochi), including Perdiccas and Polyperchon. He consistently demonstrated remarkable resilience and military acumen despite being a Greek in a Macedonian power structure.  
• Plutarch highlights Eumenes’s ability to command the loyalty of diverse armies, often in the face of opposition from powerful Macedonian generals who resented his non-Macedonian origins. He was particularly skilled in cavalry command and logistics.  
• The biography details Eumenes’s long and ultimately unsuccessful struggle for survival and influence amidst the constant warfare and shifting alliances of the Diadochi. He achieved notable victories but was ultimately betrayed and captured.
• Plutarch explores the complexities of Eumenes’s character, acknowledging his intelligence and loyalty while also noting his ambition and the ruthlessness sometimes necessary for survival in the brutal world of post-Alexandrian power politics.  
• The biography concludes with Eumenes’s capture and execution by his Macedonian rivals, highlighting the tragic fate of a talented individual caught in the power struggles of a collapsing empire.  

Life of Sertorius:

• Plutarch presents Quintus Sertorius as a talented and principled Roman general who defied the Roman Senate and led a successful rebellion in Spain for nearly a decade.
• The biography recounts Sertorius’s early military career and his initial opposition to Sulla during the Roman civil wars. Following Sulla’s victory, Sertorius fled to Spain and built a powerful coalition of Iberian tribes and Roman exiles.
• Plutarch emphasizes Sertorius’s remarkable ability to gain the trust and loyalty of the native Iberian populations, adapting Roman military tactics to the local terrain and even establishing a Roman-style education system for the Iberian youth.
• The biography details Sertorius’s military successes against several Roman armies sent to subdue him, including those led by Metellus Pius and Pompey the Great. His strategic brilliance and the loyalty of his diverse forces made him a formidable opponent.  
• Plutarch explores Sertorius’s vision of a more just and equitable Roman state, which resonated with many in Spain who resented Roman exploitation. He effectively created a rival Roman Senate in Spain.
• The biography concludes with Sertorius’s assassination by his own disaffected Roman officers, a betrayal that ultimately led to the collapse of his rebellion. Plutarch portrays Sertorius as a capable and just leader whose efforts were undermined by internal treachery.

Comparison of Eumenes and Sertorius:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two resourceful leaders who carved out significant power bases in turbulent times, often against seemingly insurmountable odds:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes the intelligence, strategic acumen, and ability to command loyalty displayed by both Eumenes and Sertorius. Both men operated in environments marked by political instability and constant warfare, and both managed to build significant followings despite facing considerable opposition from established powers (Macedonian generals for Eumenes, the Roman Senate for Sertorius). Both also met tragic ends through betrayal by their own subordinates.
• Differences: Eumenes was a Greek serving within the Macedonian successor states, constantly navigating the rivalries of powerful Macedonian figures. Sertorius was a Roman leading a rebellion against Rome in a distant province. Their cultural and political contexts were quite different.  
• Eumenes’s power base was primarily his personal charisma and his ability to forge alliances and command armies composed of various ethnicities. Sertorius built his power by appealing to the grievances of the Iberian populations and Roman exiles, creating a more politically motivated movement.
• While both were effective military leaders, Eumenes operated in the shifting landscape of dynastic wars, while Sertorius led a more sustained resistance against a dominant power.
• Plutarch seems to present both men as capable and admirable in their resourcefulness and leadership, yet ultimately victims of the ruthless political realities of their time. Eumenes’s tragedy lies in his being an outsider in a Macedonian power struggle, while Sertorius’s lies in the internal betrayal that undermined his successful resistance.  

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the qualities of leadership in times of upheaval, highlighting the importance of intelligence, adaptability, and the ability to inspire loyalty. The lives of Eumenes and Sertorius serve as reminders of the precarious nature of power and the role of betrayal in shaping historical outcomes.

 

Plutarch: Eumenes and Sertorius Compared. Table

Please note: As with some other pairs, the formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost for the pair of Eumenes and Sertorius. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the themes and parallels Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two highly capable but ultimately tragic figures.

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Eumenes of Cardia and Quintus Sertorius, based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Eumenes of Cardia (Greek/Cardian)	Quintus Sertorius (Roman)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Core Situation	Brilliant commander/statesman fighting established powers (Antigonus/Diadochi) from a position of relative weakness/contested legitimacy.	Brilliant commander/statesman fighting established power (Sullan Rome) from exile, leading a secessionist state.	Both were exceptionally talented leaders opposing the dominant forces of their time, operating outside the main centers of power, and facing overwhelming odds.
Background / Status	Non-Macedonian Greek (from Cardia), Alexander’s former secretary, leading Macedonian troops who often resented his ‘foreign’ origin.	Roman noble, exiled from Rome due to civil war (Marian supporter), leading Roman exiles and native Spanish tribes.	Both faced challenges related to their status: Eumenes battled ethnic prejudice; Sertorius managed diverse loyalties (Romans vs. Spanish allies, internal Roman factions).
Military & Political Skill	Highly skilled strategist and administrator; adept at diplomacy and managing difficult troops despite prejudice.	Highly skilled general (conventional & guerrilla warfare); effective statesman creating a rival Roman government (senate, schools) in Spain.	Both demonstrated remarkable competence in both military command and political/administrative organization under extremely challenging circumstances.
Command Challenges	Constant struggle against insubordination, jealousy, and betrayal from powerful Macedonian generals and veteran troops.	Managed diverse coalition (Romans/Spaniards); faced jealousy and ultimately betrayal from ambitious Roman subordinates (Perperna).	Both commanded potentially fractious forces. Eumenes’ primary challenge was ethnic prejudice/rivalry; Sertorius’s was managing diverse allies and Roman peer jealousy.
Nature of Opposition	Fought against powerful individual Successor Kings (Antigonus) vying for Alexander’s empire.	Fought against the organized military might of the established Roman state, led by generals like Metellus Pius and Pompey the Great.	Both faced formidable enemies commanding vast resources. Sertorius perhaps faced a more monolithic state power; Eumenes faced powerful but competing individual dynasts.
Cause of Downfall (Key Parallel)	Ultimately betrayed by his own elite troops (the Silver Shields), who handed him over to Antigonus.	Assassinated by his own jealous Roman officers led by Perperna during a banquet.	Crucial Parallel: Neither was defeated decisively by their main external enemy; both were destroyed by treachery from within their own ranks, despite their abilities.
Character & Resilience	Portrayed as intelligent, loyal (to Alexander’s cause/family), resourceful, incredibly resilient against constant adversity.	Portrayed as intelligent, brave, inspiring loyalty (esp. among Spaniards via fawn), capable of statesmanship, resilient in exile.	Plutarch highlights the remarkable skill, intelligence, and endurance both men displayed in navigating treacherous political and military landscapes.
Plutarch’s Implied Judgment	Admires his brilliance, loyalty, and struggle against prejudice, lamenting his betrayal.	Admires his military/political skill, resilience in exile, and ability to inspire diverse groups, lamenting his betrayal.	Both presented as highly capable figures whose talents were tragically overcome by internal betrayal rather than external defeat, serving as studies in leadership, loyalty, and adversity.

 

Plutarch: Agesilaus II and Pompey

Agesilaus II Pictures

Pompey Pictures

Agesilaus II and Pompey YouTube Video

Spartan king, Agesilaus II

Pompey the Great: Rome’s Most Illustrious General, Part I

Pompey the Great: Rome’s Most Illustrious General, Part II

 

Plutarch: Life of Agesilaus II and Life of Pompey

Plutarch’s Life of Agesilaus II and Life of Pompey offer a compelling comparison between two highly successful military and political leaders from different eras and city-states. Agesilaus II was a Spartan king who led his city through significant military campaigns in Greece and Asia Minor. Pompey the Great was a celebrated Roman general and statesman who achieved immense power and influence in the late Roman Republic. While both men achieved great renown and wielded considerable authority, their characters, leadership styles, and ultimate fates differed significantly.  

Life of Agesilaus II:

• Plutarch portrays Agesilaus as a shrewd and capable Spartan king who overcame a physical disability (lameness) to become a dominant figure in Greek politics for much of the late 5th and early 4th centuries BCE.
• The biography recounts Agesilaus’s early life and his unexpected ascent to the throne. Plutarch emphasizes his adherence to Spartan discipline and his ability to connect with his soldiers.
• Plutarch details Agesilaus’s extensive military campaigns, including his successful expedition to Asia Minor against the Persian Empire, where he demonstrated his strategic acumen and leadership.  
• The biography also covers Agesilaus’s involvement in the complex political landscape of Greece, including the Corinthian War, where he led Sparta against a coalition of Thebes, Athens, Corinth, and Argos, often displaying remarkable resilience and tactical skill.  
• Plutarch highlights Agesilaus’s personal virtues, such as his frugality, his endurance, and his dedication to Spartan ideals, even while acknowledging some of his less admirable traits, such as his stubbornness and occasional ruthlessness.
• The biography concludes with Agesilaus’s death during a campaign in Egypt, reflecting on his long and influential reign and his significant impact on the history of Sparta and Greece.

Life of Pompey:

• Plutarch presents Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) as a man of immense military talent, charismatic leadership, and significant political influence in the late Roman Republic.
• The biography recounts Pompey’s early military successes, which propelled him to prominence at a young age, earning him the cognomen “Magnus” (the Great). His campaigns in Sicily, Africa, and Spain showcased his military abilities.  
• Plutarch details Pompey’s crucial role in the Social War and his subsequent command against Sertorius in Spain, a challenging conflict where he eventually prevailed.
• The biography emphasizes Pompey’s extraordinary military achievements in the East, where he decisively defeated Mithridates VI of Pontus, reorganized the eastern provinces, and achieved unparalleled glory.  
• Plutarch explores Pompey’s complex political career, his shifting alliances (including his involvement in the First Triumvirate with Caesar and Crassus), and his eventual rivalry with Caesar, which led to civil war.
• The biography culminates in Pompey’s defeat at the Battle of Pharsalus and his subsequent assassination in Egypt, reflecting on the tragic downfall of a once-triumphant leader.

Comparison of Agesilaus and Pompey:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines the similarities and differences between these two prominent figures:

• Similarities: Plutarch notes the exceptional military talent and the great renown achieved by both Agesilaus and Pompey. Both men commanded significant armies and achieved major victories, shaping the political landscape of their respective eras. Both also experienced periods of immense power and influence within their city-states.
• Differences: Agesilaus was a hereditary king of a relatively conservative and land-based power, Sparta, operating within the context of Greek interstate relations. Pompey was a Roman general who rose through the ranks of a powerful and expansionist republic, navigating the complexities of Roman senatorial politics and civil strife.  
• Agesilaus’s leadership was often characterized by his adherence to Spartan ideals and his personal austerity. Pompey, while also a capable commander, was known for his charisma, his grand public image, and his immense wealth and patronage.  
• While both experienced periods of conflict and opposition, Pompey’s career culminated in a devastating civil war and a tragic end. Agesilaus, while facing numerous challenges, maintained his position as king until his death in a foreign campaign.  
• Plutarch often contrasts Agesilaus’s more traditional and perhaps more narrowly focused leadership with Pompey’s broader impact on the Mediterranean world and the more dramatic trajectory of his career, marked by both unparalleled success and catastrophic failure.  

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores different models of leadership and the impact of individual ambition and character on the course of history. Agesilaus embodies a more stoic and traditionally virtuous form of leadership within the Spartan context, while Pompey represents the complexities and potential pitfalls of immense personal power and ambition within the dynamic and ultimately self-destructive Roman Republic.

 

Plutarch: Agesilaus II and Pompey Compared. Table

Please note: As with some other pairs, the formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost for the pair of Agesilaus II and Pompey the Great. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the themes and parallels Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two highly renowned but ultimately complex military and political leaders.

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Agesilaus II and Pompey the Great, based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Agesilaus II (Spartan King)	Pompey the Great (Roman General/Statesman)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Foundation	Highly successful and renowned military commanders over long careers; experienced both great triumphs and significant setbacks.	Highly successful and renowned military commanders over long careers; experienced both great triumphs and significant setbacks (especially later in life).	Plutarch likely paired them as examples of great leaders whose careers illustrate the vicissitudes of fortune and the interplay between military success and political life.
Scale of Military Action	Commanded Spartan forces, primarily in Asia Minor and Greece; known for discipline and personal valor.	Commanded large Roman armies across vast territories (Spain, Africa, East, against pirates); achieved massive conquests and organized provinces.	Pompey’s military stage and achievements were geographically vaster and involved larger forces than Agesilaus’s campaigns.
Character & Consistency	Embodied traditional Spartan virtues (simplicity, endurance, discipline) fairly consistently; known for affability to friends but harshness to enemies (esp. Thebes).	Initially displayed Roman virtues but known for vanity, sensitivity to public opinion, political vacillation; perhaps less consistent in character over time.	Plutarch likely contrasts Agesilaus’s character, rooted firmly (perhaps rigidly) in Spartan discipline, with Pompey’s, which seemed more influenced by fame, fortune, and political expediency.
Ambition & Motivation	Ambitious for Spartan hegemony and personal glory within the Spartan system.	Driven by desire for military glory (imitating Alexander), triumphs, popular acclaim, and political preeminence in Rome.	Both were highly ambitious, but Agesilaus’s ambition was framed by Spartan kingship/tradition, while Pompey’s operated in the shifting, competitive landscape of the late Roman Republic.
Political Role & Acumen	Influential king within Sparta’s dual monarchy/oligarchy; stubborn foreign policy (vs. Thebes) potentially harmful.	Key political player (consul, triumvir); powerful but often politically indecisive or outmaneuvered (especially by Caesar).	Agesilaus held inherent power as king; Pompey navigated complex alliances and rivalries, ultimately failing in the ultimate political contest against Caesar.
Handling Fortune/Adversity	Maintained personal dignity and Spartan discipline despite Sparta’s declining power and his own physical disability (lameness).	Rose spectacularly (“Fortune’s favorite”) but seemed to collapse mentally and strategically after defeat (Pharsalus), leading to a poor end.	Agesilaus showed greater fortitude and consistency in facing adversity; Pompey’s career highlighted a greater dependency on success and fortune.
End of Life / Legacy	Died old (around 84) while still active on campaign in Egypt, serving Spartan interests.	Assassinated ignominiously in Egypt (age 57) as a fugitive after losing the Civil War; a dramatic fall from immense power.	Plutarch likely contrasts Agesilaus’s end, still serving his state in old age, as more dignified and consistent than Pompey’s tragic and somewhat pathetic demise after political failure.
Plutarch’s Likely View	Admired for Spartan virtues, endurance, and consistency, though perhaps criticized for harmful policy (vs. Thebes).	Acknowledged for vast military successes and initial promise, but criticized for vanity, political vacillation, and inability to handle adversity.	Pompey’s life seen as a grander spectacle of fortune’s rise and fall; Agesilaus’s as a more consistent (if perhaps limited) example of virtue rooted in civic discipline.

 

Plutarch: Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar

Alexander the Great Pictures

Julius Caesar Pictures

Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar YouTube Video

The Greatest General in History? Alexander the Great (All Parts)

The Life of Julius Caesar – The Rise and Fall of a Roman …

 

Plutarch: Life of Alexander the Great and Life of Julius Caesar

Plutarch’s Life of Alexander the Great and Life of Julius Caesar are arguably his most famous pairings in Parallel Lives. They offer a fascinating comparison of two of history’s most celebrated military commanders and statesmen, both of whom achieved extraordinary feats, reshaped the political map of their world, and left an enduring legacy.  

Life of Alexander the Great:

• Plutarch portrays Alexander as a figure of immense ambition, courage, and intellectual curiosity, inheriting a powerful Macedonian kingdom from his father Philip II and exceeding all expectations.  
• The biography recounts Alexander’s early life, his education under Aristotle, and his swift consolidation of power after Philip’s assassination.  
• Plutarch details Alexander’s incredible military campaigns, beginning with his invasion of the Persian Empire, his series of decisive victories (Granicus River, Issus, Gaugamela), and his relentless pursuit of Darius III.
• The biography covers Alexander’s conquest of vast territories, including Egypt, and his continued eastward expansion into Central Asia and India, facing diverse cultures and formidable challenges.
• Plutarch explores Alexander’s complex personality, highlighting his military genius, his personal bravery, his intellectual interests, his adoption of foreign customs, his occasional impulsiveness and ruthlessness, and his growing sense of divine ambition.
• The biography concludes with Alexander’s untimely death in Babylon, leaving a vast but unstable empire and ushering in the Hellenistic Age. Plutarch reflects on the scale of his achievements and the “what ifs” of his unfinished plans.

Life of Julius Caesar:

• Plutarch presents Julius Caesar as a brilliant Roman general, statesman, and orator who rose to prominence through his military successes, his political acumen, and his popular appeal.  
• The biography recounts Caesar’s early life, his political maneuvering, and his formation of the First Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus.
• Plutarch details Caesar’s spectacular military campaigns in Gaul, his conquest of the region, and the immense wealth and military experience he gained.  
• The biography covers the growing rivalry between Caesar and Pompey, Caesar’s defiance of the Senate by crossing the Rubicon, and the subsequent Roman Civil War.  
• Plutarch describes Caesar’s military victories in the civil war (Pharsalus, Thapsus, Munda) and his consolidation of power in Rome, eventually becoming dictator for life.
• The biography explores Caesar’s reforms and ambitions, including his plans for further conquests and his assassination by a conspiracy of senators who feared his autocratic tendencies. Plutarch reflects on Caesar’s immense impact on the Roman Republic and its transformation into an empire.

Comparison of Alexander and Julius Caesar:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines the remarkable parallels and notable differences between these two extraordinary figures:

• Similarities: Plutarch emphasizes the shared ambition, military genius, personal courage, and relentless drive for glory that characterized both Alexander and Caesar. Both men achieved unprecedented military success, conquered vast territories, and left a lasting impact on the political and cultural landscape of their time. Both were charismatic leaders who inspired fierce loyalty in their soldiers. Both also challenged the existing political order of their societies.  
• Differences: Alexander was a king who inherited a strong military and embarked on a campaign of conquest against a major empire from a young age. Caesar was a Roman aristocrat who rose through the ranks of the republic, achieving power through military command and political maneuvering within a complex system.  
• Alexander’s conquests led to the creation of a vast, albeit short-lived, empire and the spread of Hellenistic culture. Caesar’s actions led to the end of the Roman Republic and the foundation of the Roman Empire, a more enduring political structure.  
• With plans for further eastern conquests, Alexander’s ambitions seemed to know no bounds. Caesar’s ambitions were more focused on consolidating power within the Roman world, although he also had plans for eastern campaigns.
• Plutarch also touches upon their personal styles and the circumstances of their deaths. Alexander died relatively young from illness, while Caesar was assassinated as a result of a political conspiracy.

Through these biographies and their comparison, Plutarch explores the nature of great leadership, the allure and consequences of ambition, and the impact of extraordinary individuals on the course of history. He invites readers to contemplate the similarities and differences between these two iconic figures who, despite their different backgrounds and contexts, left an indelible mark on the world.

 

Plutarch: Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar Compared. Table

Please Note: The formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost for the pair of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the themes and parallels Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two epochal figures.

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Alexander the Great (Macedonian/Greek)	Julius Caesar (Roman)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Core Traits	Immense ambition, supreme military genius, personal bravery, charisma, world-changing impact.	Immense ambition, supreme military genius, personal bravery, charisma, world-changing impact.	Plutarch paired them as arguably the two most renowned and impactful military/political leaders of antiquity, both driven by extraordinary ambition.
Military Genius / Nature of Wars	Conquered vast Eastern empires (Persia, parts of India); fought primarily foreign foes.	Conquered Gaul; fought numerous battles across Europe/Africa/Asia Minor, including extensive civil wars against fellow Romans.	Both exceptional commanders. Plutarch might compare the nature of their enemies (vast established empires vs. ‘barbarians’/Romans) and scale of battles (fewer major battles for Alexander? vs. Caesar’s countless engagements).
Origins / Path to Power	Inherited a strong kingdom and veteran army from father Philip II.	Rose through Roman political ranks (novus homo indirectly via Marius connection), built power base through Gallic Wars, seized control via civil war.	It contrasts Alexander’s starting from a powerful position with Caesar’s building his power within a competitive republic before overthrowing it.
Character / Temperament	Passionate, impetuous, and prone to rage (e.g., killing Cleitus) but also deep remorse, highly valued friendship (Hephaestion), increasingly adopted ‘Oriental’ customs.	Generally more calculated, disciplined, known for strategic clemency (esp. towards Roman enemies), master politician, maintained Roman identity.	Contrasts Alexander’s fiery, perhaps less controlled temperament with Caesar’s cooler political calculation. Caesar’s clemency often highlighted (though potentially strategic).
Key Flaw / Vice	Susceptibility to anger, potential arrogance/paranoia later in life, possible excessive drinking.	Relentless ambition leading to subversion of the Republic and perception of aiming at kingship.	Alexander’s flaws seem more personal/temperamental; Caesar’s flaw is fundamentally political (in Roman eyes) – overthrowing the Republic for personal power.
Relationship with Power / Kingship	Born a king, later adopted aspects of Persian absolute monarchy, sought divine honors.	Accumulated Republican offices, ultimately became Dictator Perpetuo, creating fears of monarchy in a Republic.	Both moved towards autocratic rule, challenging the norms of their respective societies (Macedonian/Greek vs. Roman Republican).
Manner of Death	Died young (32) at height of power, possibly from illness, poison, or cumulative effects of wounds/drinking. Empire fragmented.	Assassinated later in life (55) by fellow Roman senators due to fears of his monarchical power. Led to further civil war, but ultimately the Empire.	Contrasts Alexander’s early death leaving chaos vs. Caesar’s assassination which, while causing turmoil, ultimately paved the way for his heir and the Imperial system.
Legacy / Impact	Spread Hellenistic culture across the East; the empire dissolved, but the cultural impact endured.	Transformed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire; his name became synonymous with supreme rule.	Both fundamentally reshaped the geopolitical and cultural landscape of their worlds in profound and lasting ways.
Plutarch’s Likely View	Deep admiration for both figures’ genius and achievements, but presents them as complex individuals with significant flaws, serving as powerful studies in ambition, leadership, and the effects of power.

 

Plutarch: Phocion and Cato the Younger

Phocion Pictures

Cato the Younger Pictures

Phocion and Cato the Younger YouTube Video

Execution of Phocion | Death of Phocion | Ancient Executions …

Cato the Younger — The Father of Roman Stoicism

 

Plutarch: Life of Phocion and Life of Cato the Younger

Plutarch’s Life of Phocion and Life of Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (Cato the Younger) offer a study in principled, often uncompromising, integrity and their challenges within the shifting political landscapes of Athens and the late Roman Republic, respectively. Both men were known for their austerity, their unwavering commitment to their ideals, and their resistance to the dominant political currents of their time, often leading to tragic consequences.  

Life of Phocion:

• Plutarch portrays Phocion as an Athenian statesman and general known for his consistent integrity, his blunt honesty, and his often unpopular but ultimately wise counsel. He was respected for his virtue and his long career in public service, despite frequently opposing the prevailing popular opinion.  
• The biography recounts Phocion’s military service, where he often achieved success through careful planning and strategic thinking rather than flamboyant action. He was a respected and effective commander, particularly known for his naval victories.
• Plutarch emphasizes Phocion’s unwavering commitment to what he believed was best for Athens, even when it meant opposing the passionate rhetoric of demagogues and the shifting moods of the Athenian assembly. He often advocated for peace and caution, particularly in dealings with Macedon.  
• The biography details the increasing isolation Phocion faced in his later years as Athenian politics became more volatile and nationalistic. His pragmatic approach and his perceived pro-Macedonian leanings made him a target of popular resentment.
• Plutarch recounts the tragic end of Phocion’s life, when he was unjustly accused of treason by a resurgent democratic faction supported by Macedon and was condemned to death. Plutarch highlights the ingratitude of the Athenians towards a man who had served them faithfully for decades.  

Life of Cato the Younger:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (Cato the Younger) as a staunch Stoic philosopher and a fiercely principled Roman senator who became a symbol of uncompromising republican virtue in the face of the rising power of individuals like Caesar.
• The biography recounts Cato’s early life and his strict adherence to Stoic ideals of duty, austerity, and moral rectitude. He was known for his incorruptibility and his unwavering commitment to the traditions of the Roman Republic.
• Plutarch details Cato’s political career, marked by his staunch opposition to corruption, his resistance to the ambitions of powerful individuals, and his often stance in a Senate increasingly swayed by personal interests and factionalism. He was a vocal opponent of Caesar, predicting the dangers his ambition posed to the Republic.
• The biography emphasizes Cato’s unwavering commitment to the Republic, even when it became clear that its cause was likely lost. He famously refused to compromise his principles or to seek favor from those he opposed.  
• Plutarch recounts Cato’s tragic death in Utica after Caesar’s victory in the civil war. Rather than live under what he considered tyranny, Cato chose to take his own life, becoming a martyr for the Republican cause and a symbol of unwavering resistance to autocracy.  

Comparison of Phocion and Cato the Younger:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two individuals who embodied principled integrity and faced tragic ends due to their unyielding commitment to their ideals in changing political climates:

• Similarities: Plutarch highlights the shared characteristics of both Phocion and Cato: their unwavering integrity, their austerity of lifestyle, their blunt honesty, and their courage to stand against popular opinion when they believed it was wrong. Both were deeply committed to the well-being of their respective city-states according to their principles. Both also faced isolation and ultimately unjust deaths due to their principled stances.
• Differences: Phocion operated in the democratic but often volatile political landscape of Athens, navigating the whims of the assembly and the influence of powerful demagogues. Cato lived in the late Roman Republic, a more aristocratic system increasingly dominated by powerful individuals and civil strife.
• Phocion’s principles often led him to advocate for pragmatic solutions and caution, even if unpopular. Cato’s principles led to a more absolute and uncompromising resistance to those he perceived as threats to the Republic.  
• While both were respected for their integrity, Phocion had a long and generally successful career before his tragic end, serving in various military and political roles. Cato’s political career was largely defined by his opposition to the dominant forces of his time.  
• Plutarch seems to suggest that both men, in their own ways, represented a form of principled resistance to the prevailing trends of their eras. Phocion’s tragedy lay in the ingratitude of his fellow citizens, while Cato’s lay in the defeat of the political ideals he so fiercely defended.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the challenges faced by individuals who prioritize principle over popularity and who remain steadfast in their beliefs even when facing overwhelming opposition. The lives of Phocion and Cato serve as poignant reminders of the potential costs of uncompromising integrity in a world often driven by expediency and the pursuit of power.

 

Plutarch: Phocion and Cato the Younger Compared. Table

Please Note: As you correctly stated, the formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost (or was possibly never written) for the pair of Phocion and Cato the Younger. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the strong thematic parallels and contrasts Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two figures renowned for their unwavering, almost severe, integrity.  

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Phocion and Cato the Younger, based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Phocion (Athenian)	Cato the Younger (Roman)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Core Virtue	Exceptional Integrity and Honesty (“the Good”); Incorruptibility; Austerity.	Exceptional Integrity and Moral Rigidity (Stoic principles); Incorruptibility; Austerity; Adherence to Mos Maiorum.	Plutarch clearly paired them as exemplars of uncompromising virtue and integrity operating within challenging and often corrupt political environments.
Political Stance / Context	Advocated pragmatic caution & realism regarding Macedonian power during Athens’ decline; often opposed popular but risky ventures.	Staunch defender of the traditional Roman Republic against perceived corruption and the rise of powerful individuals (Caesar, Pompey); uncompromisingly republican.	Both stood against the dominant political tides of their eras (rise of Macedon vs. fall of the Roman Republic), often finding themselves politically isolated due to their principles.
Temperament / Style	Known for blunt, laconic speech, serious demeanor, and realism, sometimes seen as pessimism or lack of spirit by opponents.	Known for sternness, severity, moral inflexibility based on Stoic philosophy; uncompromising in political stances.	Both characterized by a certain rigidity and unwillingness to compromise their principles for political expediency, distinguishing them from more adaptable politicians.
Relationship with the Populace	Respected for integrity but often unpopular due to his cautious/blunt advice; frequently elected general despite this.	Respected for unwavering virtue but alienated many through inflexibility and severity; not a populist figure.	Neither sought popular favor through flattery or compromise; their influence stemmed from respect for their integrity, not popularity.
Effectiveness vs. Principle	Pragmatic approach sometimes preserved Athens from worse disasters but couldn’t halt Macedonian dominance.	Uncompromising defense of the Republic ultimately failed; his stance became a moral symbol rather than a politically effective strategy against Caesar.	Plutarch invites reflection on whether their extreme integrity, while admirable, hindered their political effectiveness or was the only honorable stance in corrupt times.
End of Life	Condemned to death by hemlock by the Athenian assembly during political turmoil after Alexander’s death; faced death calmly.	Committed suicide in Utica after Caesar’s victory at Thapsus, refusing to live under tyranny; death became legendary symbol of republican virtue.	Both met tragic ends directly resulting from their adherence to their principles in the face of overwhelming political forces they opposed. Both faced death with fortitude.
Plutarch’s Likely View	Deep admiration for their unwavering integrity and incorruptibility.	Deep admiration for their unwavering integrity and incorruptibility.	Both presented as paragons of virtue whose tragic ends highlight the difficulty of maintaining absolute integrity in times of political decay and transition. They serve as powerful moral examples, even if their political rigidity is open to interpretation.

 

Plutarch: Agis IV and Cleomenes III, and Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus

Agis IV Pictures

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus Pictures

Tiberius Gracchus:

Gaius Gracchus:

Agis IV and Cleomenes III, and Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus YouTube Video

Revolution in Sparta : Cleomenes III, Spartan King and …

The Brothers Gracchi – How Republics Fall – Extra History …

 

Plutarch: Life of Agis IV and Cleomenes III, and Life of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus

Plutarch’s Life of Agis IV and Cleomenes III and Life of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus are often grouped together because they both chronicle periods of significant social and political reform movements within their respective city-states, Sparta and Rome, driven by idealistic leaders seeking to address issues of inequality and civic decay. Both sets of biographies highlight the challenges and ultimate tragedies faced by those who attempt radical reform against entrenched interests.

Life of Agis IV and Cleomenes III:

• Plutarch presents Agis IV and Cleomenes III as two Spartan kings who, in separate generations, attempted to revive the traditional Lycurgan system and restore Sparta’s former glory by addressing the growing issues of land inequality, debt, and declining citizen numbers.  
• Agis IV: Plutarch details Agis’s idealistic efforts in the 3rd century BCE to redistribute land, cancel debts, and reinstate the communal lifestyle that had once characterized Sparta. Agis faced significant opposition from wealthy landowners and conservative elements. Despite initial success in gaining support, his reforms were ultimately thwarted by political maneuvering and the outbreak of war, leading to his imprisonment and execution.  
• Cleomenes III: Plutarch portrays Cleomenes, Agis’s successor, as a more forceful and radical reformer in the late 3rd century BCE. Cleomenes, also aiming to restore Spartan strength, took more drastic measures, including the abolition of the Ephorate (a powerful magistracy), the redistribution of land, the cancellation of debts, and the expansion of citizenship. He achieved considerable initial success, even uniting much of the Peloponnese under his leadership. However, his ambitions ultimately clashed with the Achaean League and Macedon, leading to his defeat and exile, where he eventually died.
• Plutarch emphasizes the noble intentions of both kings and the deep-seated social and economic problems they sought to address. He also highlights the resistance they faced from those who benefited from the existing inequalities and the external forces that ultimately contributed to their downfall.

Life of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus:

• Plutarch presents Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus as two Roman brothers in the 2nd century BCE who, as tribunes of the plebs, championed significant social and political reforms aimed at alleviating the plight of the poor and addressing land distribution issues in Rome.  
• Tiberius Gracchus: Plutarch details Tiberius’s efforts to enact agrarian laws that would redistribute public land (ager publicus) to landless Roman citizens. His proposals faced fierce opposition from wealthy landowners who had illegally occupied large tracts of this land. Tiberius’s attempts to bypass senatorial opposition and appeal directly to the people led to a constitutional crisis and ultimately to his assassination by a mob led by conservative senators.  
• Gaius Gracchus: Plutarch portrays Gaius as an even more radical and comprehensive reformer than his brother. As tribune, Gaius proposed a wide range of laws, including further agrarian reforms, grain distribution to the poor, the establishment of new colonies, and the extension of citizenship to Rome’s Italian allies. Gaius also faced intense opposition from the Senate and the wealthy elite. Similar to his brother, his efforts to enact reforms and his growing popularity led to political conflict and ultimately to his death during a violent confrontation with senatorial forces.  
• Plutarch emphasizes the brothers’ idealism, their eloquence, and their genuine concern for the welfare of the Roman people. He also highlights the deep divisions within Roman society and the ruthless tactics employed by the conservative establishment to suppress their reform movements.

Comparison of the Reformers:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines the parallel struggles of these four individuals who sought to address social and economic inequalities in their respective city-states:

• Similarities: Plutarch underscores the shared idealism, courage, and commitment to reform that characterized Agis, Cleomenes, and the Gracchi brothers. All four recognized the need for fundamental changes in their societies to address issues of inequality, declining citizen numbers (in Sparta), and the plight of the poor. All faced fierce opposition from entrenched interests and ultimately met tragic, violent ends as a result of their reform efforts. Their movements also generated significant political upheaval and division within their states.
• Differences: Agis and Cleomenes operated within the specific context of Sparta’s unique social and political system, attempting to revive its ancient laws and military strength. The Gracchi brothers worked within the Roman Republic, addressing issues of land distribution and citizenship rights within a more complex and expanding state.  
• The methods employed by the reformers also differed. Agis initially sought reform through legal and persuasive means, while Cleomenes adopted more radical and at times forceful measures. The Gracchi brothers utilized their tribunician power to propose legislation and appeal directly to the Roman people.  
• The scale and long-term impact of their movements also varied. While Agis and Cleomenes achieved some temporary successes, their efforts ultimately failed to restore Sparta’s former glory. The Gracchi brothers’ reforms, though violently suppressed, laid the groundwork for future social and political changes in Rome and contributed to the growing tensions that eventually led to the Republic’s collapse.  
• Plutarch seems to suggest that while their specific contexts and approaches differed, all four men were driven by a desire to improve the lives of their fellow citizens and restore what they perceived as a more just and equitable order. Their tragic fates highlight the immense challenges and dangers faced by those who attempt to challenge deeply rooted inequalities and powerful vested interests.

Through these biographies, Plutarch provides a powerful commentary on the complexities of social and political reform, the resistance it often encounters, and the personal sacrifices made by those who dare to challenge the status quo. The stories of Agis, Cleomenes, and the Gracchi brothers serve as enduring examples of the struggles for justice and equality in the ancient world.

 

Plutarch: Agis IV and Cleomenes III, and Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus Compared. Table

This refers to Plutarch’s unique Comparison (Synkrisis) that follows the lives of four figures: the Spartan reforming kings Agis IV and Cleomenes III, treated as one pair, and the Roman reforming tribunes Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus, treated as the other. 1 Plutarch compares these two pairs of revolutionary figures who challenged the status quo in their respective states and met tragic ends. 

Here is a table summarizing the key points of Plutarch’s comparison between these two pairs:

Comparison Criterion	Spartan Kings (Agis & Cleomenes)	Roman Tribunes (Tiberius & Gaius Gracchus)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Goal / Aim	Restore ancient Lycurgan discipline, address wealth inequality, debt relief, land redistribution, strengthen Sparta.	Address land inequality (ager publicus), restore small farmer class, assert popular rights against Senate, grain subsidies, judicial reform, citizenship issues (esp. Gaius).	Both pairs aimed at major social/economic reforms to counteract perceived corruption/inequality and restore (what they saw as) traditional virtues/strengths of their states.
Source of Authority / Position	Acted as hereditary Kings of Sparta (though sometimes opposed by Ephors/co-kings).	Acted as Tribunes of the Plebs, using popular assembly and tribunician powers against the Senate.	Contrasts royalty acting (theoretically) for state good vs. officials elected to protect the people acting against the established aristocracy.
Methods Used	Agis: Persuasion, appeal to tradition, initially gentle. Cleomenes: Used force (killed Ephors), military backing, more autocratic reform.	Tiberius: Used popular assembly, bypassed Senate, controversially deposed fellow tribune. Gaius: Broader legislative program, more direct confrontation with Senate.	Compares Agis’s initial mildness vs. Cleomenes’ force. Compares Tiberius’s initial focus vs. Gaius’s wider, potentially more disruptive agenda. Notes the Gracchi operated within (though stretching) republican procedures initially, unlike Cleomenes’ coup.
Nature of Opposition	Faced opposition from wealthy landowners, powerful Ephors, and the other royal house (initially Leonidas II).	Faced intense, unified opposition from the wealthy landowning senatorial aristocracy (Optimates).	Both pairs faced powerful, entrenched interests opposed to their redistribution/reform plans.
Personal Character / Motivation	Agis seen as purely idealistic/gentle. Cleomenes as bolder, more ambitious/warlike, perhaps less pure in motive.	Tiberius was initially seen as more moderate. Gaius was more fiery, possibly driven more by a desire to avenge Tiberius alongside reform goals. The Gracchi were noted for their noble birth/education.	Plutarch generally praises the noble intentions of all four, seeing them as opposing corruption, but explores nuances in their temperaments and ambitions. He may find Agis and Tiberius started with purer/less aggressive aims.
Violence & Responsibility	Agis was executed unjustly. Cleomenes used violence (killing Ephors) and died after a military defeat/failed revolt.	Tiberius killed in a riot instigated by Senators. Gaius died during street fighting after Senate action (SCU).	Plutarch weighs the violence used by the reformers (esp. Cleomenes) versus the violence used against them by the established powers. The Gracchi perhaps less culpable for initiating violence.
Outcome / Manner of Death	Both ultimately failed; Agis was executed, and Cleomenes died in exile after military defeat.	Both ultimately failed; Tiberius was murdered by the mob, and Gaius was killed/suicided during political violence.	Key Parallel: All four reformers met violent, tragic ends as a direct result of their attempts at radical change against powerful opposition.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Laments the fall of potentially noble reformers.	Laments the fall of potentially noble reformers.	Plutarch views both pairs as possessing noble aims to cure the ills of their states but perhaps differing in methods and temperament. He deeply regrets their tragic fates and the political turmoil they represented, seeing their stories as cautionary tales about reform, resistance, and political violence.

 

Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero

Demosthenes Pictures

Cicero Pictures

Demosthenes and Cicero YouTube Video

Demosthenes: Greatest Enemy of Philip of Macedon

The Life and Death of Cicero

 

Plutarch: Life of Demosthenes and Life of Cicero

Plutarch’s Life of Demosthenes and Life of Marcus Tullius Cicero offer a fascinating comparison of two of the ancient world’s greatest orators and statesmen, who both played crucial roles in defending their respective city-states against external threats to their liberty and republican institutions. Demosthenes championed Athenian resistance against the rising power of Macedon, while Cicero stood as a prominent defender of the Roman Republic against the ambitions of figures like Catiline and later the encroaching power of the triumvirs.

Life of Demosthenes:

• Plutarch portrays Demosthenes as a man who overcame physical limitations and early setbacks to become the most celebrated orator of Athens, using his powerful rhetoric to rouse his fellow citizens against the threat posed by King Philip II of Macedon.
• The biography recounts Demosthenes’s rigorous training in oratory and his early successes in Athenian law courts, which honed his skills in argumentation and persuasion.
• Plutarch details Demosthenes’s passionate and unwavering opposition to Philip II, delivering his famous “Philippics” to warn the Athenians of the Macedonian king’s ambitions and urge them to take action to defend their independence and the liberty of the other Greek city-states.  
• The biography covers Demosthenes’s involvement in various political and diplomatic efforts to form alliances against Macedon, often facing apathy and opposition from within Athens and from other Greek cities.
• Plutarch recounts the eventual Macedonian conquest of Greece following the Battle of Chaeronea, a defeat that Demosthenes, though present, could not prevent.
• The biography continues with Demosthenes’s later political activities, his brief exile during Alexander the Great’s reign, and his return to Athens to rally support against Macedon once more after Alexander’s death.
• Plutarch concludes with Demosthenes’s flight and subsequent suicide to avoid capture by Antipater, Alexander’s successor, highlighting his unwavering commitment to Athenian liberty until the very end.

Life of Cicero:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Tullius Cicero as a man of humble origins who rose to become one of Rome’s greatest orators, statesmen, and intellectuals, playing a significant role in the tumultuous final years of the Roman Republic.
• The biography recounts Cicero’s extensive education in rhetoric and philosophy, which prepared him for his distinguished career in law and politics.  
• Plutarch details Cicero’s early successes as a lawyer, his election to various magistracies, and his landmark consulship during which he famously exposed and suppressed the Catilinarian conspiracy, earning him the title “Pater Patriae” (Father of the Fatherland).  
• The biography covers Cicero’s complex political career, his shifting alliances (including his reluctant involvement in the First Triumvirate), and his principled defense of republican ideals against the growing power of individuals like Caesar.
• Plutarch recounts Cicero’s exile following Caesar’s rise to power, his eventual return, and his continued efforts to navigate the dangerous political landscape of the late Republic, often through his powerful oratory and extensive writings.
• The biography culminates in Cicero’s outspoken opposition to Mark Antony after Caesar’s assassination and his subsequent proscription and execution by Antony’s forces, highlighting his ultimate sacrifice in defense of the Republic and his principles.

Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines the remarkable parallels between these two great orators and their roles in defending republican liberty against powerful external and internal threats:

• Similarities: Plutarch emphasizes the exceptional oratorical skills of both Demosthenes and Cicero, their unwavering patriotism and commitment to the liberty of their respective city-states, and their courageous opposition to powerful adversaries (Philip/Alexander of Macedon for Demosthenes, and various powerful individuals threatening the Republic for Cicero). Both men used their eloquence as a primary weapon in the political arena and were deeply involved in the major political struggles of their time. Both also faced periods of exile and ultimately met tragic deaths as a consequence of their political stances.
• Differences: Demosthenes primarily confronted an external military threat to Athenian independence. Cicero primarily battled internal threats to the Roman Republic, though he also dealt with external conflicts. Demosthenes operated within the direct democracy of Athens, while Cicero navigated the more complex and aristocratic structures of the Roman Republic. Demosthenes’s focus was largely on rousing his fellow citizens to military action. Cicero’s efforts involved a broader range of political maneuvering, legal arguments, and philosophical discourse. While both were skilled orators, their styles differed, reflecting the different audiences and political cultures they addressed.  
• Plutarch seems to suggest that both men were exemplary figures who dedicated their considerable talents to the defense of liberty and republican ideals in the face of formidable challenges. Their lives serve as powerful examples of the importance of eloquence, courage, and principle in the struggle against tyranny and the preservation of freedom.

Through these biographies, Plutarch offers a profound reflection on the power of rhetoric, the responsibilities of citizenship, and the enduring struggle to maintain liberty against the forces of autocracy and conquest. The parallel lives of Demosthenes and Cicero stand as testaments to the enduring value of eloquent defense of freedom in the face of overwhelming odds.

 

Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format. Plutarch himself notes the striking number of parallels in their lives, almost as if Nature and Fortune competed to make them similar.

Feature	Demosthenes (Athens)	Cicero (Rome)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Core Similarity	Preeminent orator of Greece; statesman defending Athenian liberty against powerful external threats (Macedon).	Preeminent orator of Rome; statesman defending the Roman Republic against internal threats (Catiline, Antony).	Both rose from less prominent beginnings to great power through eloquence; both conflicted with powerful figures/tyrants; both suffered exile and recall; both lost daughters; both died violently for their political stances.
Oratorical Style	Intense, grave, forceful, focused, aimed at power/earnestness; less humor/adornment (“smelled of the lamp/water-drinking”).	More varied, learned, witty, sometimes prone to jesting/scurrility even in serious cases; style adapted to situation.	Plutarch acknowledges both as supreme but contrasts Demosthenes’ focused intensity with Cicero’s greater versatility and use of humor (which he sometimes finds inappropriate).
Primary Political Aim	Resisting Macedonian expansionism (Philip II, Alexander); preserving Athenian freedom and leadership.	Preserving the Roman Republic, internal stability (concordia ordinum), suppressing conspiracy (Catiline), opposing autocratic power (Antony).	Demosthenes focused primarily on foreign threats; Cicero primarily on internal political stability and constitutional integrity.
Character / Integrity	Generally patriotic and incorruptible, but faced accusations of bribery (Harpalus’ treasure), which led to exile.	Generally patriotic and incorruptible (esp. regarding provincial governorships), but the execution of Catilinarians without a full trial was controversial.	Both seen as fundamentally virtuous patriots. Plutarch discusses the charges against Demosthenes but contrasts his “infamous” exile reason (bribery conviction) with Cicero’s “honorable” one (defending the state).
Consistency / Steadfastness	Largely consistent in his anti-Macedonian stance throughout his career.	Sometimes seen as politically vacillating or overly cautious during the civil wars, trying to navigate between factions.	Demosthenes perceived as perhaps more unwavering in his primary political cause.
Relationship with Power/ Authority	Held no major independent commands; influence primarily through oratory shaping policy/motivating generals.	Achieved highest office (Consul), wielded significant (dictatorial-like) power against Catiline; advised/needed by generals (Pompey, Octavian).	Cicero experienced supreme authority directly, which Plutarch notes is the greatest test of character. Demosthenes influenced power, but didn’t wield it himself to the same extent.
Self-Presentation (Praise/Wit)	Grave demeanor, rarely joked; mentioned own achievements sparingly and only when necessary for argument.	Known for wit/pleasantry, serene countenance; prone to immoderate self-praise and boasting about his achievements (esp. consulship) in speeches.	Plutarch finds Demosthenes more stately/magnificent in his self-restraint regarding self-praise, criticizing Cicero’s excessive desire for glory derived from eloquence.
End of Life / Manner of Death	Took poison to avoid capture by Macedonian agents after Athenian defeat in Lamian War; died by his own hand resisting enemies.	Executed during proscriptions ordered by the Second Triumvirate (specifically Antony); met death with courage and dignity.	Both died violently as victims of the political forces they opposed, defending the liberty of their respective states. Plutarch admires Demosthenes’ foresight in preparing poison.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Supreme orator in force/gravity; steadfast patriot; perhaps more dignified in self-presentation.	Supreme orator in breadth/wit; courageous defender of Republic; notable statesman, but flawed by vanity/inconsistency at times.	Plutarch deeply admires both as the pinnacles of Greek and Roman oratory and statesmanship, highlighting their parallel struggles and tragic ends while subtly critiquing Cicero’s vanity compared to Demosthenes’ gravity.

 

Plutarch: Demetrius Poliorcetes and Mark Antony

Demetrius Poliorcetes Pictures

Mark Antony Pictures

Demetrius Poliorcetes and Mark Antony YouTube Video

Demetrius the Besieger, died from overindulgence in 283 BCE

Mark Antony – Lover of Cleopatra Documentary

 

Plutarch: Life of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Life of Mark Antony

Plutarch’s Life of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Life of Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) offer a study in charismatic and ambitious leaders whose initial successes and popular appeal were ultimately undermined by their extravagance, personal weaknesses, and conflicts with powerful rivals. Both figures were known for their military prowess, their dramatic personalities, and their significant impact on the political landscape of the Hellenistic world and the late Roman Republic, respectively.

Life of Demetrius Poliorcetes:

• Plutarch portrays Demetrius I of Macedon, nicknamed “Poliorcetes” (the Besieger), as a flamboyant and innovative military commander and a controversial ruler in the tumultuous period following the death of Alexander the Great.
• The biography recounts Demetrius’s early military successes alongside his father Antigonus I Monophthalmus, particularly his naval victories and his impressive siegecraft, which earned him his famous epithet.  
• Plutarch details Demetrius’s involvement in the complex power struggles among the Diadochi (Alexander’s successors), his sieges of major cities like Rhodes and Athens, and his brief reigns in Macedon and parts of Greece.  
• The biography emphasizes Demetrius’s dramatic personality, his love of luxury and spectacle, his numerous marriages, and his often-theatrical approach to warfare and politics, which both charmed and alienated his contemporaries.
• Plutarch recounts the eventual decline of Demetrius’s fortunes, his overreaching ambitions, and the coalition of rivals that ultimately led to his downfall and capture.  
• The biography concludes with Demetrius’s death in captivity, reflecting on his brilliant but ultimately unsustainable career, marked by both remarkable achievements and significant failures due to his excesses and lack of strategic focus.  

Life of Marcus Antonius:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) as a charismatic and militarily capable Roman general who played a pivotal role in the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, becoming a key figure in the Second Triumvirate and a lover of Cleopatra.
• The biography recounts Antony’s early military service, including his time under Julius Caesar in Gaul, where he demonstrated his courage and loyalty.
• Plutarch details Antony’s rise to power after Caesar’s assassination, his formation of the Second Triumvirate with Octavian and Lepidus, and their brutal proscriptions against their enemies.
• The biography emphasizes Antony’s administration of the eastern Roman territories, his complex and ultimately fateful relationship with Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt, and the growing tensions and rivalry between him and Octavian.
• Plutarch covers the propaganda war between Antony and Octavian, the Battle of Actium, Antony’s defeat, and his subsequent suicide in Egypt alongside Cleopatra.
• The biography reflects on Antony’s strengths as a military commander and his personal charisma, contrasting them with his impulsiveness, his indulgence in pleasure, and his strategic misjudgments that ultimately led to his downfall and the end of the Republican aspirations he once represented.

Comparison of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Mark Antony:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two charismatic and ambitious leaders whose lives followed a similar arc of initial success followed by decline due to personal flaws and conflicts with determined rivals:  

• Similarities: Plutarch notes the shared characteristics of Demetrius and Antony: their impressive military abilities, their personal magnetism and popularity with their soldiers and some segments of the populace, their inclination towards extravagance and pleasure, their involvement in major power struggles of their time, and their ultimate defeat and tragic ends due to their own failings and the strength of their adversaries. Both men also had a flair for the dramatic and a tendency towards theatrical displays of power and personality.
• Differences: Demetrius operated in the fragmented Hellenistic world, vying for control of territories and engaging in sieges and naval battles against various successor kings and city-states. Antony operated within the context of the Roman Republic’s collapse and the rise of a new imperial order, his primary rivalry being with another Roman leader, Octavian. Demetrius’s relationships, while numerous, did not have the same profound and politically significant dimension as Antony’s with Cleopatra. The stakes of Antony’s conflict were arguably higher, leading to the definitive end of the Republic.  
• Plutarch seems to suggest that a combination of external pressures and internal weaknesses undid both men. Demetrius’s ambition and extravagance strained his resources and alienated allies, while Antony’s entanglement with Cleopatra and his strategic miscalculations ultimately led to his defeat by Octavian.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the complexities of leadership, the seductive nature of power and pleasure, and the critical importance of strategic thinking and personal discipline in maintaining long-term success. The lives of Demetrius and Antony serve as cautionary tales of charismatic leaders who, despite their initial brilliance and popular appeal, ultimately succumbed to their own flaws and the relentless pressures of ambition and rivalry.

 

Plutarch: Demetrius Poliorcetes and Mark Antony Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Demetrius Poliorcetes and Mark Antony based on Plutarch’s comparative essay (Synkrisis) presented in a table format. Plutarch notably presents this pair as examples of great potential undermined by similar flaws, particularly indulgence in pleasures.

Feature	Demetrius Poliorcetes (Macedonian/Greek)	Mark Antony (Roman)	Plutarch’s Comparative Notes
Shared Core Traits / Flaws	Warlike, ambitious, charismatic, munificent, extravagant, prone to luxury, drinking, and womanizing; experienced dramatic shifts in fortune.	Warlike, ambitious, charismatic, munificent, extravagant, prone to luxury, drinking, and womanizing; experienced dramatic shifts in fortune.	Both presented as “great natures” exhibiting both great virtues and great vices, particularly an inability to control their appetites for pleasure, which contributed significantly to their ruin.
Military Abilities	Brilliant general, especially renowned for siegecraft (“Poliorcetes” – the Besieger).	Excellent soldier and capable general, particularly skilled at inspiring loyalty and bravery in troops (initially).	Both highly capable commanders, though perhaps excelling in different aspects of warfare.
Nature of Indulgence (Pleasures/Luxury)	Known for numerous wives/mistresses (e.g., Lamia), lavish banquets, theatricality, demanding divine honors.	Known for heavy drinking, feasting, and his consuming love affair with Cleopatra, adopting an “oriental” lifestyle.	Both heavily criticized for excessive indulgence. Plutarch contrasts Demetrius’s perhaps broader licentiousness with Antony’s specific, politically ruinous entanglement with Cleopatra.
Treatment of Wives / Family Relations	Married multiple wives simultaneously (common for Hellenistic kings), but held them in varying degrees of honor/neglect. Blameless towards parents.	Married Octavia (sister of rival Octavian) then abandoned her for Cleopatra; married Cleopatra (contrary to Roman custom/law). Surrendered uncle for Cicero’s death.	Both strongly condemned for mistreatment of wives. Antony’s abandonment of the virtuous Octavia for the foreign queen Cleopatra seen as particularly disgraceful and politically damaging. Demetrius praised for filial piety.
Political Ambition / Context	Aimed to rule Macedon and reclaim Alexander’s empire in the chaotic Wars of the Diadochi.	Aimed for supreme power in Rome, a member of the Second Triumvirate, ruled Eastern territories, and fought civil war against Octavian.	Demetrius sought kingship over those used to kings. Antony sought to enslave Romans just freed from Caesar’s rule (seen by Plutarch as harsher), and his actions determined the fate of the Roman world.
Cause of Downfall	Arrogance, instability, inability to maintain loyalty of Macedonians, and excesses alienating potential allies.	Infatuation with Cleopatra leading to strategic errors (Actium), political alienation from Rome, loss of focus on duty.	Plutarch attributes both downfalls largely to their personal failings and excesses, though Antony’s specifically linked to Cleopatra’s influence (“disarmed by Cleopatra”).
Manner of Death	Became captive of Seleucus I, gave himself up to drinking, and died in comfortable captivity after several years.	Committed suicide after defeat at Alexandria, preventing capture by Octavian.	Neither death commended, but Plutarch finds Demetrius’s decline into captive indulgence more contemptible than Antony’s suicide, which at least prevented enemy capture.
Plutarch’s Overall Judgment	Great potential marred by arrogance and uncontrolled indulgence; wronged others through his excesses.	Great potential marred by slavish devotion to pleasure (Cleopatra); he wronged himself and Rome through his excesses.	Presents both as negative examples (unusual for Plutarch) of how even great talents and initial virtues can be completely undermined by lack of self-control and addiction to pleasure.

 

Plutarch: Dion and Marcus Junius Brutus

 

Dion Pictures

Marcus Junius Brutus Pictures

 

 

Dion and Marcus Junius Brutus YouTube Video

Dionysius of Syracuse. A tyrant who fancied himself a …

Marcus Junius Brutus: History’s Most Infamous Betrayal

 

Plutarch: Life of Dion and Life of Marcus Junius Brutus

Plutarch’s Life of Dion and Life of Marcus Junius Brutus offer a study in idealistic republicanism and the challenges of liberating one’s state from tyranny, often with tragic personal consequences. Both Dion of Syracuse and Marcus Junius Brutus, a prominent figure in the assassination of Julius Caesar, were driven by philosophical ideals of freedom and justice, and both ultimately met violent ends despite their efforts.

Life of Dion:

• Plutarch portrays Dion as a noble and intellectually inclined Syracusan who was deeply influenced by Plato and sought to establish a more just and Hellenic form of government in Syracuse, then under the rule of the tyrannical Dionysius the Younger.
• The biography recounts Dion’s close relationship with Plato during the philosopher’s visits to Syracuse and Dion’s own philosophical inclinations. He believed in a rule based on law and virtue.
• Plutarch details Dion’s efforts to persuade Dionysius the Younger to embrace philosophy and reform his tyrannical rule. When this failed, Dion organized an expedition with the support of exiled Syracusans and Peloponnesian forces to liberate Syracuse.
• The biography highlights Dion’s initial success in overthrowing Dionysius and his efforts to establish a more moderate and lawful government. However, Dion faced suspicion and opposition from various factions within Syracuse, including those who desired a more radical democracy and those who resented his influence.
• Plutarch recounts the growing instability in Syracuse, the intrigues against Dion, and his eventual assassination by his own associates, led by the Athenian Callippus. The biography reflects on the tragic irony of a liberator being killed by those he sought to benefit.

Life of Marcus Junius Brutus:

• Plutarch presents Marcus Junius Brutus as a man of noble Roman lineage, known for his high-minded principles, his Stoic philosophy, and his deep commitment to the ideals of the Roman Republic.
• The biography recounts Brutus’s initial support for Pompey against Julius Caesar during the civil war, driven by his republican convictions. After Caesar’s victory, Brutus was pardoned and even favored by Caesar, creating a significant internal conflict for him.
• Plutarch details Brutus’s central role in the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, motivated by the belief that Caesar’s ambition and assumption of dictatorial power were destroying the Republic. Brutus acted despite personal ties and warnings.
• The biography covers the aftermath of Caesar’s assassination, the initial hopes for a restoration of the Republic, and the subsequent power struggles that erupted, particularly between the conspirators and Mark Antony.
• Plutarch recounts Brutus’s efforts to rally support for the Republican cause in the East, his military campaigns against the forces of the Second Triumvirate (Antony and Octavian), and his ultimate defeat at the Battle of Philippi.
• The biography concludes with Brutus’s suicide after his defeat, choosing death rather than surrender to those he saw as the enemies of the Republic. Plutarch portrays Brutus as a man of high ideals who made a fateful decision with tragic consequences for himself and the Republican cause.

Comparison of Dion and Marcus Junius Brutus:

In his comparison, Plutarch examines two individuals driven by a commitment to republican ideals who sought to liberate their states from tyranny, facing significant challenges and ultimately meeting tragic ends:

• Similarities: Plutarch underscores the shared idealism, philosophical inclinations (Dion influenced by Plato, Brutus by Stoicism), and commitment to establishing or restoring a more just and free form of government in their respective city-states. Both men acted against powerful figures they perceived as tyrannical (Dion against Dionysius, Brutus against Caesar). Both also faced suspicion, opposition, and ultimately betrayal or defeat despite their noble intentions.
• Differences: Dion sought to liberate a Greek city from a hereditary tyrant and establish a more Hellenic and law-based rule. Brutus acted within the complex political landscape of the late Roman Republic against a figure who had arguably become a de facto monarch. Dion’s struggle was more localized, while Brutus’s actions had ramifications for the entire Roman world. Dion was assassinated by his own supporters due to political instability and personal rivalries, while Brutus fell in battle against the forces seeking to consolidate power after Caesar’s death.
• Plutarch seems to suggest that both men, despite their noble aims and personal integrity, were perhaps somewhat naive in their understanding of the political realities they faced and the ruthlessness of their opponents. Their lives serve as poignant examples of the difficulties and dangers inherent in challenging tyranny and striving for idealistic political change.

Through these biographies, Plutarch explores the complexities of political idealism, the challenges of implementing philosophical principles in the real world of power and ambition, and the often tragic fate of those who dare to confront tyranny in the name of freedom and justice.

 

Plutarch: Dion and Marcus Junius Brutus Compared. Table

Please note: The formal comparison essay (Synkrisis) by Plutarch, which usually follows the paired biographies, is lost for the pair of Dion of Syracuse and Marcus Junius Brutus. Therefore, the comparison points below are inferred from the themes and parallels Plutarch presents in their individual Lives, reflecting why he likely chose to pair these two figures, both deeply influenced by philosophy and known for taking dramatic action against autocratic rulers.

Here is a table outlining the likely points of comparison between Dion and Brutus, based on Plutarch’s implied parallels:

Feature	Dion of Syracuse (Greek)	Marcus Junius Brutus (Roman)	Implied Comparison Points by Plutarch
Shared Core Trait	Influenced by philosophy (Plato/Academy); acted against tyranny based on ideals; aimed to restore liberty/better governance.	Influenced by philosophy (Stoicism/Academy); acted against perceived tyranny (dictatorship) based on republican ideals; aimed to restore liberty.	Both were philosopher-statesmen whose commitment to ideals drove them to undertake dangerous political action against powerful rulers.
Nature of ‘Tyrant’ Opposed	Fought against established, hereditary tyrants (Dionysius I & II) known for cruelty and misrule.	Led conspiracy against Julius Caesar, a complex figure who rose within the Republic, was a former associate/benefactor, and whose ‘tyranny’ was debated.	Dion fought against unambiguous tyrants. Brutus’s target was far more controversial, making his act (killing a ‘father’/friend figure for the state) arguably more morally complex and fraught.
Primary Motivation	Restore Syracusan liberty; implement philosophical ideals of governance learned from Plato.	Restore the Roman Republic; eliminate perceived threat of monarchy/dictatorship; uphold traditional Roman liberty and virtue.	Both motivated by high-minded ideals and patriotism rather than personal gain.
Method of Action	Led an armed expedition from exile to overthrow Dionysius II.	Led a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar within the Senate.	Dion used open warfare after exile; Brutus used conspiracy and assassination from within the political system.
Political Acumen / Aftermath	Briefly ruled Syracuse but struggled with popular politics; seen as austere/severe; unable to stabilize the state or prevent counter-revolution.	Failed to secure political control after Caesar’s death; lacked decisive follow-through; forced into civil war he ultimately lost.	Both demonstrated a lack of practical political skill or perhaps ruthlessness needed to manage the chaos following their primary actions, leading to failure.
Character / Temperament	Noble intentions, but could be severe, aloof, perhaps politically naive, or uncompromising in applying philosophical ideals.	Noble, principled, respected for integrity; perhaps indecisive politically, conflicted between duty and personal ties; maintained moral standards in war.	Dion’s flaws related more to governance style; Brutus’s involved the act of assassination itself and subsequent political handling. Brutus often seen as milder personally.
Cause of Failure / Death	Lost popular support, faced internal opposition, assassinated by a treacherous associate (Callippus).	Defeated in civil war (Battle of Philippi) by Antony and Octavian; committed suicide to avoid capture.	Both ultimately failed and died violently. Dion fell to internal betrayal; Brutus fell to military defeat fighting for the republican cause, his actions helped ignite the war.
Plutarch’s Likely View	Admired their philosophical grounding and noble anti-tyrannical aims.	Admired their philosophical grounding and noble anti-tyrannical aims.	Presents both as tragic figures: men of high principle whose attempts to implement ideals through drastic action failed due to political reality, internal flaws, or fortune. Brutus’s action against Caesar likely seen as the more morally complex and debatable undertaking.

 

Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch Similarities

Let’s explore the similarities between Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch, three major figures from classical antiquity whose works primarily deal with the past. While they lived in different eras (Herodotus and Thucydides in the 5th century BC, Plutarch much later in the 1st-2nd century AD) and wrote in different primary genres (history vs. biography/moral essays), they share several commonalities:

1. Greek Heritage and Language: All three were ethnically Greek and wrote their influential works in the Greek language. They drew heavily upon Greek culture, literature, and philosophical traditions.
2. Focus on the Past: All were deeply engaged with recounting and interpreting the past. Herodotus chronicled the Greco-Persian Wars, Thucydides the Peloponnesian War, and Plutarch the lives of prominent Greeks and Romans from earlier periods.  
3. Interest in Causation: Although their approaches differed, each writer explored why events happened and why individuals acted as they did. Thucydides famously sought rational political and human causes for the Peloponnesian War. Herodotus considered a wider range, including divine will, fate, and human motivations. Plutarch primarily focused on individual character (ethos) as the driving force behind actions and outcomes.
4. Moral Dimension: While varying in explicitness, all their works engage with morality. Herodotus often illustrates concepts like hubris and nemesis. Despite his aim for objectivity, Thucydides presents situations ripe with moral implications regarding power and justice. Plutarch’s explicit purpose in the Parallel Lives was moral instruction, using biographies as examples of virtue and vice.  
5. Use of Sources: All relied on gathering information, whether through eyewitness accounts, oral traditions, interviews, or existing written documents, although the availability and nature of sources varied significantly across different times and subjects.
6. Literary Craftsmanship: They were all skilled writers who constructed compelling narratives. They employed literary techniques, including historical figures’ reported or reconstructed speeches, vivid descriptions, and dramatic structuring, to engage their readers.
7. Focus on Politics and Warfare: Much of their subject matter revolves around political history, leadership, statesmanship, military campaigns, and the rise and fall of cities and empires.
8. Exploration of Human Nature: Each writer, through their chosen subjects and events, delves into enduring aspects of human nature: ambition, power, courage, fear, virtue, vice, rationality, and the influence of fortune or fate.  
9. Enduring Influence: All three have had a profound and lasting impact on Western historiography, political thought, biography, and literature, serving as foundational texts studied for centuries.

Despite these similarities, it is crucial to remember their key differences, especially in genre (history vs. biography) and methodology (Thucydides’s rigorous rationalism vs. Herodotus’s inclusive inquiries vs. Plutarch’s character-focused moralism), as well as the vastly different historical contexts in which they wrote.

 

Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch Differences

While Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch were all influential Greek writers who engaged with the past, their approaches, goals, and contexts differed significantly. Here are some key differences:

1. Primary Genre and Purpose:
   • Herodotus: Primarily a historian (often called the “Father of History”). His work, The Histories, aimed to record the deeds of Greeks and barbarians, especially concerning the Greco-Persian Wars, to preserve their memory and explore the causes of the conflict. His purpose included inquiry (historiē) and storytelling.  
   • Thucydides: Also a historian, but with a narrower focus and different methodology. His History of the Peloponnesian War aimed to provide an accurate (akribeia) account of this contemporary conflict, analyzing its political and military causes and course to create a “possession for all time,” believing human nature would lead to similar conflicts in the future.  
   • Plutarch: Primarily a biographer and moral philosopher. He explicitly stated in his Parallel Lives that he wrote “Lives,” not “Histories,” focusing on revealing character (ethos) through anecdotes and actions to provide moral examples, rather than giving a comprehensive historical account.  
2. Chronological Focus:
   • Herodotus: Wrote about the recent past (Greco-Persian Wars ended a generation before he wrote) but included extensive background covering earlier periods, geography, and ethnography across the known world.  
   • Thucydides: Focused almost exclusively on a contemporary event he lived through and participated in (the Peloponnesian War).
   • Plutarch: Wrote centuries after most of his subjects lived, covering a vast span from mythical founders (Theseus, Romulus) to figures of the late Roman Republic and early Empire.
3. Methodology and Explanation of Causation:
   • Herodotus: Employed a broad, inclusive methodology. He included oral traditions, myths, legends, personal inquiries (such as travels), omens, divine intervention, and human motivations as potential causal factors.
   • Thucydides: Pioneered a more rational and analytical approach. He largely excluded divine causation, focusing on human nature (fear, honor, self-interest) and political power dynamics as the primary drivers of events. He emphasized critical evaluation of sources and eyewitness accounts.  
   • Plutarch: Focused on character as the primary cause. He believed an individual’s virtues and vices shaped their actions and ultimately their fate. His method involved synthesizing information from numerous (often unnamed) earlier written sources to construct moral portraits.
4. Scope and Subject:
   • Herodotus: Wide-ranging, covering the geography, customs, and histories of various peoples (Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Scythians, etc.) involved in the central conflict.  
   • Thucydides: Narrow and deep, concentrating intensely on the political and military dimensions of the war between Athens and Sparta and their allies.
   • Plutarch: Focused on individuals. His Parallel Lives covers dozens of specific Greek and Roman statesmen and generals, comparing them in pairs.  
5. Style and Tone:
   • Herodotus: Engaging, digressive, often described as a master storyteller; tone can range from serious to wondrous.  
   • Thucydides: Austere, analytical, dense, often complex Greek; strives for an objective, impartial tone.  
   • Plutarch: Anecdotal, engaging, explicitly moralizing; often warmer and more focused on personal details than Thucydides.  

In essence, while all three provide invaluable windows into the ancient world, Herodotus offers a broad, inquisitive exploration of history and culture, Thucydides delivers a rigorous analysis of political and military conflict, and Plutarch uses biography as a lens for moral philosophy and character study.

 

Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch Compared. Table

Okay, here is a comparison of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch in table format, highlighting their key similarities and differences based on our previous discussion.

Feature	Herodotus	Thucydides	Plutarch
Era	c. 484 – c. 425 BC (Classical Greece)	c. 460 – c. 400 BC (Classical Greece)	c. 46 – after 119 AD (Roman Empire)
Primary Genre	History (Broad Inquiry)	History (Political/Military)	Biography, Moral Philosophy
Main Work(s)	The Histories	History of the Peloponnesian War	Parallel Lives, Moralia
Subject Focus	Greco-Persian Wars, Cultures, Origins	Peloponnesian War (Athens vs. Sparta)	Lives & Characters of prominent Greeks & Romans
Chronological Focus	Recent Past (relative to him), Deep Past	Contemporary Events (lived through the war)	Distant Past (relative to him, includes mythic era)
Geographical Scope	Wide (Greece, Persia, Egypt, Scythia, etc.)	Focused (Greek world, primarily Athens & Sparta)	Broad (Greece & Rome across centuries)
Approach to Causation	Eclectic (Human, Divine, Fate, Custom)	Rationalist (Human Nature, Power Politics)	Moral (Individual Character, Virtue/Vice)
Methodology	Historiē (Inquiry), Travel, Oral & Written Sources	Critical Analysis, Eyewitness Accounts Preferred	Synthesis of Written Sources, Anecdotal Evidence
View on Divine Role	Acknowledges/Includes Divine Intervention, Omens, Oracles	Explicitly Excludes/Minimizes Divine Causation	Acknowledges Beliefs/Fate, Focuses on Human Action
Use of Speeches	Included, likely representing tradition/composition	Included, analytical, representing arguments (ta deonta)	Included, drawn from sources, reveals character
Style & Tone	Engaging, Storytelling, Digressive, Curious	Austere, Analytical, Dense, Objective-seeking	Engaging, Anecdotal, Moralizing, Personal
Stated Purpose	Preserve Memory, Investigate Causes	Accurate Record for Future Understanding (“Possession for all time”)	Moral Instruction through Examples (paradeigmata)
Overall Legacy	“Father of History”	“Father of Scientific History” / Political Realism	Master Biographer, Moralist