The following gobbet is from Plutarch’s (C. 50 B.C.- C.120 A.D.) Alexander. It narrates Alexander’s journey to the Libyan Oracle of Siwah in 332 . The aim of this essay is to draw the possible reasons as to why Alexander went to this specific oracle its consequences and question the reliability of Plutarch’s account. Plutarch describes the conversation between the priest of Ammon and Alexander. Alexander inquired if all the murderers of his father were punished to which the priest replied that Alexander was not the son of a mortal. Plutarch also records the priest mispronouncing “O paidos “ (O son of Zeus) instead of “O paidon” (O my son). Even if Diodorus and Justin relate the same event and agree that the priest speaking to Alexander referred to him as the son of Zeus, our most reliable source on Alexander, Arrian, whose account is generally well detailed, fails to mention this. Indeed, the only mention of what was said at Siwah was that Alexander ‘heard what was agreeable to his wishes’. So why then does Arrian fail to mention the account of Alexander’s speech with the priest? One possibility would be that this speech never happened. The deification of Alexander was an important event in his lifetime, in the years before his death he was deified. Although speculation exists as to how Alexander was deified; meaning whether or not it was self-deification. Roberts suggests that Alexander encouraged many Greek cities to ‘offer him divine cult’, for which they allowed. Plutarch being a biographer and moralist had a tendency to romanticise his subject and as a consequence being subjective. One of Arrian’s principal sources was Ptolemy, who was a key figure during Alexander’s campaign and Pharaoh of Egypt followin... ... middle of paper ... ...: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol.8, No 3, pp. 349-355 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434623 (Accessed on 22nd February 2010) • Robert J. (2007), ‘ruler-cult’ in Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World, Ed. Robert, Oxford Reference Online:Oxford University Press.at http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t180.e1947&srn=1&ssid=1247856200#FIRSTHIT (Accessed on 22nd February 2010) • Robison C. (1943), ‘Alexander’s Deification’ in The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp.286-301 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/291013 (Accessed on 22nd February 2010) • Russel D. (2010), ‘Plutarch’ in The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth. Oxford Reference Online:Oxford University Press.at http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t133.e497&srn=1&ssid=1128506243#FIRSTHIT (Accessed on 22nd February 2010)
Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Volume I: To 1715, 8th Edition, (Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012), 90.
Rengakos, Antonios. Homertext und die Hellenistichen Dichter. Hermes. Einzelschriften, Heft 64. Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 1993.
Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization: Volume I: To 1715, 8th Edition, (Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012), 301.
Diodorus, and Plutarch make Alexander seem very arrogant in their writing because of his impossible goals and plans. Alexander was originally Macedonian, but over the years, he adopted many different cultures. During Alexander’s rule, he conquered many nations and won many battles. He was very confident in himself. Additionally, it is clear that historians wished to highlight his goal to unite the world and create one culture. In Plutarch’s The Mixing of Barbarians and Greeks, Plutarch explains Alexander’s goal to unify
While Athens prepared for the encounter of a young man that would change their city, Plutarch exp...
Freeman also spends enough time describing the difficulties and contradictions in the sources of Alexander's story that the reader can gain a sense of what may have happened while also still having a firm grasp of the his opinion of what he thinks is the truth. Some of the other texts briefly touched on the difficulties with the sources and the contradictions between them, but did a poor job conveying the opinion of the author, or the reliability of the various sources. Freeman also spends some time describing the history of Alexander. He touched briefly on Alexander's father, mother, and mentors and how they shaped him and to give a sense of him as a person. Without an understanding of where Alexander came from it is more difficult to gauge the validity of the disparate sources. With an understanding of who Alexander was as a person researchers can better understand his personality and then make better determinations if something seems out of character or not.
What follows is a further isolation of Plutarch's opinions and lessons from within The Lives of Crassus and Caesar. " Certainly the Romans say that in the case of Crassus many virtues were obscured by one vice, namely avarice; and it did seem that he had only one vice, since it was such a predominant one that other evil propensities which he may have had were scarcely noticeable. " Beginning the Life of Crassus with this statement, Plutarch starts the reader off with a negative feeling of who Crassus was. This statement is very strong because it not only points out Crassus's largest shortcoming, but also implies that it was so prevalent that it outweighed all his virtues as well as his other faults.
In the countries who believed Alexander was the son of the devil or the devil himself, will say he is not ‘great’ but a demon who did evil. The countries who were on his side would say he was the greatest conqueror to live. He began as a Macedonian cavalry commander at eighteen, king of Macedonia at twenty, conqueror of Persia at twenty-six and explorer of India at thirty [Foner and Garraty]. The amount of large scale accomplishments he managed to finish in a span of six years is astonishing. Alexander’s tomb was the largest tourist attraction in the ancient world. The tomb was even visited by Julius Caesar, Pompey, Caligula, and Augustus. Alexander the Great’s accomplishments set a bar in which provided a standard that all other leaders would match their careers too. Many leaders after Alexander could not reach the standard left by him [Foner and
A Comparison of Plutarch's The Lives of the Ancient Grecians and Romans and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
Bury, J. B.; Russell Meiggs (2000). A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great
Rengakos, Antonios. Homertext und die Hellenistichen Dichter. Hermes. Einzelschriften, Heft 64. Stuttgart, F. Steiner, 1993.
The imperial expansion of Rome or in simpler terms the development of the Roman Empire can be associated with the second century BC. Over a relatively short period of time, Rome immensely expanded its territory at a rapid rate. Although the victories in the Second Punic War satisfied Rome, they also motivated them to expend further into their neighbour’s territories and eventually conquer Greece and the North African coast. The Roman Empire became colossal and unstoppable within a blink of a century. Robin Waterfield’s new translation of Plutarch’s original work Roman Lives clarifies the reasons behind this sudden need to grow. The necessity in increase of the common wealth, the lack of available land for the Roman citizen, the safety precaution of having foreign allies and most importantly the constant need in being the most influential empire are among some of the reasons Plutarch provided. The lives of Cato the Elder, Aemilius Paullius, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus demonstrate specific cases of how these factors affected Rome and caused it to expand its borders. All explanations are valid however, when one looks at the larger picture it becomes clear that the prosperity of the Roman society is in the root of them all.
Phillip Harth. Modern Philology, Vol. 73, No. 4, Part 2: A Supplement to Honor Arthur Friedman (May, 1976), pp. S45
Duiker, William J., and Jackson J. Spielvogel. World History. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomsom Learning, 2001. 374-438.
Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans. Excerpts from "The Life of Marcus Antonius." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Gutenberg.org Web. 14 June 2015.