Alexander The Great Plutarch Summary

Alexander III of Macedon, more commonly known as Alexander the Great, was one of, if not the most brilliant military commander ever to walk the earth. At the young age of 20, he had secured the Macedonian throne after the death of his father Philip II, and would go on to unify all of Greece less than two years later. By the time he died in 323 B.C., he would have accomplished more in a short 32 years than what many men could do in twice that. In his ten years of campaigning, he would conquer all the way from Asia Minor south to Egypt, and east to India.

One of Alexander the Great’s best and most prominent qualities was his tactical brilliance. However, in a lot of modern scholarship, I feel like this is a particular part of Alexander that

Plutarch especially has a tendency to glance over tactics, although it is important to note that this was not Plutarch’s main reason for writing his account. Plutarch says in his preface, “I do not record all their most celebrated achievements or describe any of them exhaustively, but merely summarize for the most part what they accomplished, I ask my readers not to regard this as a fault.” He was, however, more concerned with “creating a portrait” of Alexander’s life. In regards to Curtius, he has a strong tendency to over exaggerate situations, which can sometimes make his accounts sound unrealistic and at certain times,

This is mainly due to Arrian’s use of the contemporary source Ptolemy, who was one of Alexander’s Generals. The representation of Alexander’s conquests, tactical genius, and overall military prowess was one of Ptolemy’s main concerns. Unfortunately, Arrian rarely directly quotes Ptolemy and therefore his account can sometimes get lost through the veil of Arrian’s account. I do truly believe that if Ptolemy’s account of Alexander’s triumphs had survived, that modern scholars and military historians would have a far better understanding of the events that transpired. But alas, that is not the case. The sad truth of the matter is that the more layers of outside interpretation and representation of an event, the further we get from the original accounts. And with so many disagreements among sources, the harder it is to decide what is right and what is