Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Plutarch's Fortune of Alexander (extra credit)

I will read to you in class a few passages from Plutarch's On the Fortune of Alexander. Glance through the online translation of this work (you don't need to read the whole thing), and pick out any information that would help you in writing an essay on whether or not Alexander deserves to be called "great." Note that there are two different "Orations" on this site, both from Plutarch's "Moralia."
Posted by at

6 comments:

  1. James HeisingerNovember 22, 2019 at 9:35 AM

    The first paragraph of The Fortune of Alexander perfectly describes what makes Alexander great. In the section, all the wounds that Alexander has suffered in battle are listed, extensively.

    "First, among the Illyrians, my head was wounded by a stone and my neck by a cudgel. Then at the Granicus my head was cut open by an enemy's dagger, at Issus my thigh was pierced by the sword. Next at Gaza my ankle was wounded by an arrow, my shoulder was dislocated, and I whirled heavily round and round. Then at Maracanda the bone of my leg was split open by an arrow."

    Plutarch goes into more detail later in the section as well. We see here that Alexander is willing to suffer greatly for the success of his troops and his country. He suffers multiple serious injuries but never stops leading his men. More admirably, he views his men as the sole reason he was successful. At the end of the paragraph, he says:

    "But if Ptolemy had not held his shield above me, and Limnaeus taking his stand before me had not fallen, a target for ten thousand shafts, and if my Macedonians had not overthrown the wall with spirit and main force, then that nameless village in a foreign land must needs have become the tomb of Alexander."

    Alexander sees that his troops were vital in making sure he survives and knows he isn't the sole reason of their success, making him a truly great leader.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mitch HanesDecember 9, 2019 at 8:17 PM

    Alexander was great not only for his military heroism, and his honorable and humble (at least within the army) personality and style of leadership. When he took power after his father he was facing threats from all sides, as well as from within his already controlled territories. He handled rebellions with both diplomacy and military strength, and made strong tactical decisions to lessen the power of neighbors, who were threats both in terms of their own instability and their acceptance of aid and emotions from Persia.
    Despite all of these troubles he not only maintained Macedon's empire but expanded it a few times over, an incredible feat then as much as it would be now. While he seems to be first and foremost a great fighter and general, he is also a great leader in his attitude and philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Abbigail PattonDecember 18, 2019 at 7:29 AM

    "Alexander ill-advised and precipitate in setting forth with such humble resources to acquire so vast an empire? By no means. For who has ever put forth with greater or fairer equipment than he: greatness of soul, keen intelligence, self-restraint, and manly courage, with which Philosophy p391 herself provided him for his campaign? Yes, the equipment that he had from Aristotle his teacher
    f
    when he crossed over into Asia was more than what he had from his father Philip. But although we believe those who record that Alexander once said that the Iliad27 and the Odyssey accompanied him as equipment for his campaigns," I think Alexander was great at getting what he wanted, which was to be a conqeror. He was great at war and winning his battles. I think that even if he had survived I don't think he would have been able to control the land he had acquired. If you look at who his heros are, peep the Iliad and the Odessy, i think that he was more concerned with glory and not about the people, which would have lead his people to ruin and civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brady HamDecember 18, 2019 at 9:49 AM

    Alexander was great in many regards. He was great in conquering, he was great at military stratagems and philosophical learning from tutor Aristotle. He was even great at spreading Greek influence across the world, and in some moral instances was progressive (the condemnation and execution of rapists for instance).

    However, his faults were just as plentiful. He could be a harsh and cruel man, he could be be less than shrewd in negotiations, he could be easily angered and somewhat trigger happy with dishing out murders (2000 Tyrians come to mind), and especially his drinking (which he inherited from father dearest Phillip) was a huge issue. He was eventually killed in Babylon, most likely from poisoning form yet another drink. He also wasn't great at getting his empire to last, as it soon crumbled after his death.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownDecember 18, 2019 at 12:53 PM

    I believe that Alexander is great on the fact that he had amazing accomplishments for the Greek empire. Great does not mean that he was a good or nice man it means that he did great things and he definitely did do great things for the Greece as a whole making him Alexander the Great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownDecember 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM

      This is Jonathon Kremer its not letting me show my name

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)