Rene G

4-15-11

According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great as an individual was a man whom possessed many traits of to which one man could rarely be attributed, but this man was had a rare affinity. Alexander is mainly described to be as a Homeric hero, a proper king and a philosopher that defended the arts. Alexanders aims, ambitions and goals consisted of conquering, superseding all of mens achievements and attaining the highest glory, which he was insatiable of. Plutarch is generally sympathetic as he tries to balance every wrong deed by Alexander with a great one or with a reason, however, he is not so sympathetic as to leave out the occasional wrong deeds that could not be balanced or reasoned for. Plutarchs portrayal of the character of Alexander emerges unified in a general sense but a paradox arises in some characteristic. First and foremost Alexander the Great was a man that beginning before birth was already mythologized and this set before him his first main characteristic that emerges from Plutarchs description of Alexander, a Homeric hero. Alexanders conception and the dream of his mothers womb lighting strike and fathers dream and sighting the serpent all makes Alexander instantly predicted to be God like, bold and lion-like (Alex. 3). Not only were the matters of his birth mythical but also his mother, Olympias possessed an affinity with the Gods. His mother would influence him greatly when she revealed his divine parentage to him before he parted for his Persian expedition. Alexander was confident that his life as many soothsayers had
1

said would prove invincible and he was meant for great things as his birth coincided with 3 victories that coincided for Philip the day of Alexanders birth (Alex. 3.) Alexander was a man that aspired to be homer heroic like and he would be encouraged by characteristics he had such as being fair skinned and possessing a peculiar fragrance that came from his body, which was superhuman like (Alex. 5). Alexander is depicted as not being ordinary as he as boy mounted Bucephalas and this is an initial sign of his greatness as he possessed the hero like and God influenced perception (Alex. 6). Alexander was inspired by his life to be hero like but also he used his favorite book, the Iliad, to show that he mirrored himself with and compared himself with the Heroes of his book. When he, at the sweet young age of 16, managed to defeat Maedi, he was showing that he was destined for great conquering and his valor in being the first in breaking the line was something that would prove later to be his common Homeric heroic rigor (Alex. 9). The audacity and proud spirit in which he acted to secure victory against neighboring barbarian tribes after he too the Kingdom show that he was not just a man inheriting the Kingdom to be advised but that he had an affinity with the Gods that allowed this decision making which he showed came naturally to him (Alex. 9). Although Alexander was convinced he was of a greater kind, he felt the reassurance of the oracle of Apollo would be needed to solidify his nature of invincibility to his people. It seems that this act was both something he personally needed and his men needed as this showed he was not only Homeric heroic in his abilities but also used this to help his troops and peoples confidence and faith in him. The Orpheus statue was something that significant as it was the last push of confidence for the expedition to Persia (Alex. 14). Although he was heroic like, he
2

was also reverent to the gods and heroes and this further demonstrated his connection with the gods and his reliance on them. This is shown to be his major concern as the first thing he does as he crossed the Hellespont is go to Troy to and pay sacrifice, libation, and homage (Alex. 15). It is remarkable in how a short statement by Alexander revealed his character of being heroic like or wanting to be because when he says that Achilles was fortunate to have a faithful friend and great poets to sing of his deeds, he shows that all he would desire in his life was to be like Achilles and be hero like. It seems that the short exchange between Alexander and some other person about seeing Paris Lyre versus Achilles Lyre suggests that Alexander was more interested in being Achilles and like him than being his own person and living a normal life (Alex. 15). One of the first signs that Alexander was hero truly favored by the gods was when the Bronze tablet emerged and dictated his decision in continuing inland against Darius. When he encounter the Gordium knot, it was obvious his actions were inspired perhaps by his god like perception as he untied the knot and was reaffirmed that he was to rule the world (Alex. 17). One of the most bold and miraculous events was when Alexander emerged alive from the ill-advised cure from his doctor Philip, which many must have believed only heroes could do (Alex. 19). His saving of Aristanders prophecy in which he made the mistake to say the city would be captured before the end of the month shows his reliance on maintain that aspect of the campaign alive (Alex. 24). Once again when he used Darius casket for his copy of the Iliad he showed he was truly an admirer of this book. Dreams, signs and prophecies played a large part in Alexander campaign and this could only be if the Gods were leading this hero. This is the case numerous times as he has these
3

dreams and signs of good omen before acting in events such as siege of Tyre, building Alexandria, marching against Darius because of the Eagle and so on. His assistance by ravens to visit the priest of Ammon where he is confirmed to be son of a God, and his grandiose victories in the three battles against Darius and Porus were especially significant in showing that this man was God favored hero (Alex. 27). No example better shows this as he is said to have scared away the Malli enemies enough time to save him when alone by using fire from his body (Alex. 63). Homeric was secondly shown to have high regard for being a proper king. When Alexander described having no desire to inherit kingdom or pleasures of senses and riches and then said he wanted a life of struggle, war, and ambition he made it perfectly noticeable that he was convinced that he wanted to rule and conquer correctly through his own merits, which is what he saw as being a proper king. To Alexander being a proper king also meant that he was part of the fight and was fighting side by side with his men as he debuted with the victory over the Maedi and him breaking the line first and later would show he would always fight side by side his men in every battle, risking his life in the process. Part of being a proper king to him was being selfless and being generous to his troops and this was no better exemplified by his giving up of the crowns land to all his men to pay them for service. This showed all he cared about was his men and his goal of conquering. Being a proper also meant to Alexander that he must show restraint for the benefit of his troops and self and he followed this code, especially when defeated Darius at Granicus and did not follow immediately to finish him off as Darius ran away (Alex. 16). His restraint prevented Alexander from making mistakes and made him a wise
4

leader in that occasion and at the Battle of Gaugamela as the same situation arose (Alex. 31). One of Alexanders greatest display of caring for being a proper king was when he made the statement about Darius lavish life and criticized as not what being king was about (Alex. 21). The moral behavior of the king was what made him proper as he proved to treat Darius family with honor at all times and later when he arrived in Persia and even in the death of Darius wife (Alex. 30). It is said that Alexander was a moderate drinker who all about moderation and this was a feature of being a proper king. As a proper king he always gave his spoils either to Greece, his men or people he honored and even when the spoil are of excessive amounts he proves not be distracted like when he attains the spoils from Issus and yet fulfills his duties. As a proper king he never abandoned his support for the Greeks as he kept in mind and was proclaimed king of Asia and said the Greeks were now free of tyrannies. Time and time again he showed his moderation for pleasures of the senses such as when he gently reproved of the luxurious excesses of his men and would risk his life by inspiring others for courage and not luxury, such as when he speared the lion (Alex. 40). As a proper king, Alexander wanted his victories to be under a code of the war but when he failed to kill Darius himself, he showed his anger towards Bessus, which showed how serious he was about being sovereign and a proper king (Alex. 43). The Battle with Porus had many interesting factors that inspired many and showed how proper a king Alexander was because he was to honor any man or woman who acted right. In pursuit of Darius his giving of water to his soldier while he needed it greatly showed his great generosity. Alexanders great feat was not enforce violence on his men when they convinced to break camp, which
5

meant that he was proper enough of a king to be on somewhat good terms with his men as they turned back from Alexanders goal of conquering all he could. The Philosopher and patron of the arts was a duty and attachment Alexander held dear as he was raised with and taught by the greatest Philosophers of the time, Aristotle. It is expressed Alexander was founded contests of tragic drama, flute, lyre performance and reciting poetry. Aristotle was a man that was heavily influenced to this liking by Aristotle and especially his teaching of esoteric, healing and philosophical studies (Alex. 7). The studies must have made Alexander as a possessor of what few men understood, only adding to his glory. Alexander was described as a lover of books and this demonstrated as he is said to have been at times sending for histories, tragedies, and poems to Asia. Such a feat could only prove for his genuine liking of books. Alexander never lost his devotion to Philosophy, as he was constantly a patron of it, such as when he paid honors to Anaxarchus, Xenocrates, and Dandamis, Calanus and later Theodectas. His most endearing display of his affection for philosophy came when he encountered Diogenes and this showed he held philosophy as high as any of his likings (Alex. 14). His philosophy at times combined with his proper king trait as he held his ground to act on his standards of life morality, for example he never accepted the children offered to him by Philoxenus, he condemned Greek men seducing other Greek mens wives and made an example with Damon and Timotheus (Alex. 22). His passion for philosophy was best exemplified by the act of risking his life for his tutor Lysimachus and his giving of spoils to his tutor Leonidas as they were his tutors from childhood and he honored them for their profession. Although counterintuitive, his wearing of Persian dress, assimilating and
6

blending of Asian customs with Macedonians, and his establishment of 30,000 boys to learn all about Greek life and war all had philosophical motives even if they were not agreed upon. The philosophical motives could include to maybe adapt local customs and soften mens heart, and to secure a partnership that would cause his philosophical knowledge to increase as he combined to knowledgeable and respectable people. One of Alexanders most philosophically based decision was when he decided to marry Roxanne and always honored the relationship and allowed it to be his first wife which he did out of love. Philosophy was always part of him and he treated it as often and respectably as he did the gods. The aims, ambitions and goals of the great Alexander were no secret. He wanted conquering, superseding all of mens achievements and attaining the highest glory. This was inherent in his nature as he showed that his passion for wanting fame made him a person of grandeur vision and pride described to be far beyond his years. However this want for Glory made singular in direction. He should at a very young age that he wanted glory such as when he mounted and tamed Bucephalas and admirably questions the Persian Ambassadors as a boy. It seems that this boy was interested in Persia and this foreshadowed the expedition as his intentions clearly were of conquering Persia. His acceptance of leading Greece to invade Persia showed he was fully confident and ready to fulfill what wanted so badly. His giving up of land to pay the troops showed he cared little for possessions and greatly for glory, as he would go to nearly any measure to attain it, even if it meant neglecting himself. His fondness of Achilles and admiration for his feats was indicative that he wanted the same glory. He cared so much for glory that he did not reveal in a letter to
7

Antipater of the wound Darius had inflicted on his thigh as did not want that to diminish his success. The most daring display of passion for glory was when he rejected the idea to fight in the night against as he said the night would not steal his victory and he did not want Darius to have an excuse. So important was glory to Alexander that he would act violent and merciless if he were ill spoken of. Plutarch is generally sympathetic as he tries to balance every wrong deed by Alexander with a great one or with a reason, however, he is not so sympathetic as to leave out the occasional wrong deeds that could not be balanced or reasoned for. Plutarch is defended from the popular idea that he is a heavy drinker by making an association to the effects of the climate to the spices being the same as his warm temperament to his drinking and outbursts of choleric rage. This is clearly Plutarch being sympathetic as he uses irrational reasoning justify his habits. Once again he is sympathetic to Alexander when he reasons Alexander was given ill information and reacted badly to the news that his fathers would marry Pixodarus daughter and Arrhidaeus and an heir could arise. When it came to the slaughter of the majority of the Thebas after their revolt, it is clear Plutarch felt the need to balance the bad deed by pointing out his behavior change towards Athenians and Thebans as he gave them what they requested and the distress he felt for his actions. Once again Plutarch is sympathetic by he was a moderate drinker at which he gave proof with Alexanders success in his short life. Plutarch defended Alexander in saying he became offensively arrogant and boastful when he drank because his flatterers cheered him on. This sympathetic defense cannot be the only reason he became that way and shows a clear sympathy with Alexander. Another sympathetic display by Plutarch to
8

Alexander is when Xerxes palace is lit in flames and Plutarch immediately proceeds it was Thais fault and that he greatly regretted the action and asked for the fire to be put out and even used the reason that e did to show his thought were toward Greece. Such actions seem unlikely and defend that Alexander was impulsive but he meant no harm. Alexander killing Cleitus the black in a drunken rage is attributed evil genies, bad circumstances, the drunkenness and it is said that the remorse he felt afterward was so great he stayed in his tent for days at which is used to show that his intentions were not bad. The paradoxes that arise consist of Alexanders the nature of Alexander being moderate but somehow was prone outburst of choleric from drinking, almost fighting his father when Attalus made the heir remark, took harsh action against the Thebans, became offensively arrogant and boastful when drinking, allowed Stephaulus to almost kill himself for entertainment, burned down the Xerxes palace, grew merciless and cruel when spoken ill about, was barbaric in killing Bessus, almost killed a whole city of people for having Bucephalas captured, executed Parmenio and his son, killed Cleitus, Had Calisthenes chained until death, had the Cosseans sacrificed for Hephaestion, became highly superstitious and the most astonishing one was when acted ruthless and unethical against the Indian mercenaries. These actions went against the moderate controlled Alexander that sought to be a proper king and was well footed in his philosophy. In Conclusion, According to Plutarch, Alexander is mainly described to be as a Homeric hero, a proper king and a philosopher that defended the arts. Alexanders aims, ambitions and goals consisted of conquering, superseding all of mans
9

achievements and attaining the highest glory, which he was insatiable of and which led to his demise. Plutarch is generally sympathetic as he tries to balance every wrong deed by Alexander with a great one or with a reason, however, he is not so sympathetic as to leave out the occasional wrong deeds that could not be balanced or reasoned for. Plutarchs portrayal of the character of Alexander emerges unified in a general sense but a paradox arises in his use of moderation as his character diminishes as the war continues and his seeking of glory continued.

10