What do you think?
Rate this book
Plutarch's Lives: Volume III
This collection of literature attempts to compile many of the classic, timeless works that have stood the test of time and offer them at a reduced, affordable price, in an attractive volume so that everyone can enjoy them.
244 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 100
50 people are currently reading
175 people want to read
About the author
Plutarch
4,288 books931 followersPlutarch (later named, upon becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus; AD 46–AD 120) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is classified as a Middle Platonist. Plutarch's surviving works were written in Greek, but intended for both Greek and Roman readers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 22, 2021
Biographies can be great because they let you live out by proxy -- in Plutarch's case, often over the course of an evening -- a very different life to the one you actually live. This is particularly great because of the variety of strange experiences life has offered.
Have you ever tried to convince your countrymen that a military campaign is folly, only to have your own excessive caution cited as a reason you should be put in charge of the (doomed) army?
Have you ever, fighting in the desert for riches, seen your own son's head waved mockingly at you on a spear?
Have you ever consulted with a pure white fawn about the best use of guerilla tactics?
Have you ever, after sipping the cup of victory on the field, found yourself captured by your own men, who intend to turn you over to the defeated general in order to liberate their captured wives, and, giving a dramatic speech to shame them into better behaviour, found yourself ignored by the impervious geriatric veterans that once conquered the world?
Have you ever been so popular that you've been fined for it?
All this and more.
Nikias -- A rather rich man, scorned for his disabling fear of the mob and of popular orators, to the extent that he was known to try and pay them off. In fact, he seems to be an extremely cautious fellow in general -- a caution that earns him some disrespect, but also comes with the result that he avoided fault for Athens' military defeats, and in his commands was generally quite successful. It's rather unfair that he ended up given the command for the Sicilian campaign that he vigorously opposed at every step, and with Alkibiades withdrawn and Lamachus killed in battle, he was left to deal with a war he never wanted, while he himself was ill.
Crassus -- Another rich guy, but one who obtained his wealth largely through profiting from disasters (he bid on houses that were on fire), bribes, and confiscating land. He also was quite happy to admit hiring assassins in order to obtain the consulship. Crassus is part of a Big Three with Caesar and Pompeius, and there is a fair bit in his Life about their machinations together, as well as his war against Spartacus, but the real highlight is the narrative of Crassus' doomed Parthian expedition, with the battle and tragedy told from the losing side. While both died as a result of their own failed campaigns, Nikias at least never wanted the command, while Crassus was eager for it, hoping to emulate Lucullus and get richer.
Sertorius -- One of the great things about Plutarch is his capacity for amazing digressions. Here, for example, he opens the Life with a discussion of weird historical coincidences:
Sertorius is probably less interesting for the minor role he played in the revolt of Cinna, and more for his story as a Roman general who conquered great territories for his barbarian masters, and humbled large Roman armies, and even some of the best generals of the age. It's a Robin Hood story, a cunning trickster general and his magical deer, dancing bloody havoc against the legions. The ending is a tragic betrayal.
Eumenes -- It's interesting how Plutarch handles men in secondary positions. The whole of Eumenes' life up until the death of Alexander is covered in just two passages. To an extent, this may reflect the lack of sources, but the suspicion is that Plutarch doesn't consider Eumenes really worthy of acknowledgement until he is a leader in his own right.
The narrative, of course, is of the great struggles that followed the death of Alexander, as all his friends and relatives fought for the remnants of his empire. There's an ugly grandeur to it, the backstabbing and the battles against brothers. Eumenes isn't particularly noble or inspiring, but he is a little foresighted and a competent general -- comparatively unremarkable, for a subject of Plutarch's. Though there are some quirks of detail.
(Surely this defeats the purpose of a countersign?)
The great parallel of these two lives is they both died as victims of betrayal, despite winning great victories. Even here, Eumenes for the most part just shows up Sertorius' superior virtue, by succumbing in spirit as well as body to those who turned on him. I did like that he gave a speech that by dramatic convention should have humbled the Macedonians into reconsidering their treachery, but they just went ahead with it anyway.
Agesilaus -- Lysander's buddy, and oddly friendly and approachable for a Spartan king. This even made him too popular, which is a fineable offense in Sparta's well-oiled state machinery. His Persian campaign was highly successful, and Plutarch makes the point that if it were not for the war on the home front that called Agesilaus back -- a war funded by Persian gold -- it might have been a Greek rather than a Macedonian that conquered the great empire.
If each Life captures a historical moment in a story, this Life is a story of the end of Spartan supremacy, an End of Days coming with its required tragedies and decay and defeats, but also some flickers of the old glory.
Pompeius -- Firstly, the detail that Pompeius' father Strabo was struck dead by lightning was surprisingly not mythologised, or at least not that Plutarch mentions. Anyway, Pompeius has a Life of two stories. The first story is one of a successful young general, who entered on the side of Sulla during the civil war, won some great victories in Libya, and later won a series of slightly more ambiguous contests around the Roman world, several times largely because he turned up at someone else's campaign just as they were winning it themselves, and stole the glory. This was one of Crassus' complaints against him in the matter of the Third Servile war, and it does seem to somewhat be a pattern, though clearly Pompeius contributed more than just his tardy presence.
Possibly his greatest act at this time was burning some letters. Perpenna, the man who betrayed Sertorius, tried to bargain for his own life by offering Pompeius some letters from powerful men in Rome who had written to invite Sertorius to Italy. Reading these letters and finding out who had betrayed the city was likely to start a new and possibly greater civil war than the one which had just been ended, and it's of credit to Pompeius that he recognised this and overcame temptation. However, that greater civil war could not be evaded forever.
The second story of Pompeius' life is his time in politics, which is intricately plotted but ultimately tends towards disaster. Pompeius was responsible for Caesar, both in terms of his political sponsorship of this young ally and in terms of his own example as a general exerting undue influence over the state. When he at last acknowledged Caesar as a threat, he underestimated him, putting off the creation of an army that might oppose him, which ultimately led to his own defeat, the first in his thirty-four years of generalship. It's worth noting that Pompeius, when earlier in life returning to Rome under conditions very like Caesar's, including the fear he would take the city and install himself as king, peacefully disbanded his army and won great acclaim. Did he think Caesar, so similar to him in the course of his life, would do the same? Is the typical mind fallacy responsible for the Roman Emperor?
Alexander -- This is the big pair, Alexander and Caesar. I knew they would be paired before I ever saw them in the table of contents, the choice is that clear for Plutarch. As with many others in Plutarch, this biography of Alexander is one of the few texts preserving original sources and other ancient historians' commentary on events. He does not pull punches: Alexander comes across surly and foolish, constantly bestowing his wealth to win love, prone to tantrums and often lacking in judgement.
I think that captures it. Much of the Life is similar material, relating Alexander's interactions with his friends and a few of his enemies, and his conduct during his conquests. It's not a pretty picture I think precisely because Alexander was not a hard and merciless man -- he was educated in philosophy, had spoken with Aristotle and Diogenes and many others. He could be merciful, even generous, but despite all he was capable of he was fundamentally fickle in a childish way. He might shower you with gifts, or he might murder you for offending him.
Caesar -- The translators seem to dispute the opinion voiced elsewhere that the beginning of Caesar's Life is missing, though I can't see why -- the Life begins without introducing its subject at all, with a passage about an early episode in Caesar's life under Sulla that I'd estimate is at least two or three passages in if following Plutarch's usual rhythm.
One thing I wasn't aware of before was the extent to which Caesar went massively into debt in his efforts to curry political favour, to the extent that if Crassus had not stood as security for him, he would never have been able to leave Rome to take up his position in Iberia, and likely would never have launched his military career.
Despite no clean record, Caesar in general (though not as a general) seems to come off better from Plutarch than Alexander -- his failings are more commonplace in statesmen, his intentions are made more relatable, and this is all in spite of him slaughtering far more of his own people than those for whom Alexander can be held to account.
Phokion -- An admirably pithy orator:
Also a great contrarian:
This is a Life rich with quotable aphorisms and moral fables. Phokion was an incorruptible statesman who held both himself and Athens to a high standard, and while he was for many years honoured for this conduct, it provided no defence when the mob eventually turned on him.
Cato the Younger -- Great-grandson of the Elder, giving some real heft to those age comparisons. Cato, like Phokion, is a moral exemplar, utterly dedicated to honesty and public service, to the extent that his name became a byword for such:
Honestly, though, Cato comes across extremely positively in this Life, showing neither fear nor favour in his public office, being impressively prescient about Pompeius and Caesar, and demonstrating that it is possible to remain stalwart in defence of principle in a time when all those around you fall prey to bribery or terror. There is a surprisingly detailed account of his last days, in the period where he had resolved to kill himself rather than submit to Caesar, which is pretty emotional.
Have you ever tried to convince your countrymen that a military campaign is folly, only to have your own excessive caution cited as a reason you should be put in charge of the (doomed) army?
Have you ever, fighting in the desert for riches, seen your own son's head waved mockingly at you on a spear?
Have you ever consulted with a pure white fawn about the best use of guerilla tactics?
Have you ever, after sipping the cup of victory on the field, found yourself captured by your own men, who intend to turn you over to the defeated general in order to liberate their captured wives, and, giving a dramatic speech to shame them into better behaviour, found yourself ignored by the impervious geriatric veterans that once conquered the world?
Have you ever been so popular that you've been fined for it?
All this and more.
Nikias -- A rather rich man, scorned for his disabling fear of the mob and of popular orators, to the extent that he was known to try and pay them off. In fact, he seems to be an extremely cautious fellow in general -- a caution that earns him some disrespect, but also comes with the result that he avoided fault for Athens' military defeats, and in his commands was generally quite successful. It's rather unfair that he ended up given the command for the Sicilian campaign that he vigorously opposed at every step, and with Alkibiades withdrawn and Lamachus killed in battle, he was left to deal with a war he never wanted, while he himself was ill.
Crassus -- Another rich guy, but one who obtained his wealth largely through profiting from disasters (he bid on houses that were on fire), bribes, and confiscating land. He also was quite happy to admit hiring assassins in order to obtain the consulship. Crassus is part of a Big Three with Caesar and Pompeius, and there is a fair bit in his Life about their machinations together, as well as his war against Spartacus, but the real highlight is the narrative of Crassus' doomed Parthian expedition, with the battle and tragedy told from the losing side. While both died as a result of their own failed campaigns, Nikias at least never wanted the command, while Crassus was eager for it, hoping to emulate Lucullus and get richer.
Sertorius -- One of the great things about Plutarch is his capacity for amazing digressions. Here, for example, he opens the Life with a discussion of weird historical coincidences:
there were two Scipios, by one of whom the Carthaginians were first conquered, and by the other were cut up root and branch; that Troy was taken by Hercules, on account of the horses of Laomedon, and by Agamemnon by means of the wooden horse, as it is called, and was taken a third time by Charidemus, by reason of the Ilians not being able to close the gates quick enough, owing to a horse having got between them; that there are two cities which have the same name with the most fragrant of plants, Ios and Smyrna, and that Homer was born in one of them and died in the other
Sertorius is probably less interesting for the minor role he played in the revolt of Cinna, and more for his story as a Roman general who conquered great territories for his barbarian masters, and humbled large Roman armies, and even some of the best generals of the age. It's a Robin Hood story, a cunning trickster general and his magical deer, dancing bloody havoc against the legions. The ending is a tragic betrayal.
Eumenes -- It's interesting how Plutarch handles men in secondary positions. The whole of Eumenes' life up until the death of Alexander is covered in just two passages. To an extent, this may reflect the lack of sources, but the suspicion is that Plutarch doesn't consider Eumenes really worthy of acknowledgement until he is a leader in his own right.
The narrative, of course, is of the great struggles that followed the death of Alexander, as all his friends and relatives fought for the remnants of his empire. There's an ugly grandeur to it, the backstabbing and the battles against brothers. Eumenes isn't particularly noble or inspiring, but he is a little foresighted and a competent general -- comparatively unremarkable, for a subject of Plutarch's. Though there are some quirks of detail.
he heard that the watchword of the enemy was 'Athena,' with the countersign 'Alexander.' Hearing this, he himself gave the word 'Demeter,' with the countersign 'Alexander,'
(Surely this defeats the purpose of a countersign?)
The great parallel of these two lives is they both died as victims of betrayal, despite winning great victories. Even here, Eumenes for the most part just shows up Sertorius' superior virtue, by succumbing in spirit as well as body to those who turned on him. I did like that he gave a speech that by dramatic convention should have humbled the Macedonians into reconsidering their treachery, but they just went ahead with it anyway.
Agesilaus -- Lysander's buddy, and oddly friendly and approachable for a Spartan king. This even made him too popular, which is a fineable offense in Sparta's well-oiled state machinery. His Persian campaign was highly successful, and Plutarch makes the point that if it were not for the war on the home front that called Agesilaus back -- a war funded by Persian gold -- it might have been a Greek rather than a Macedonian that conquered the great empire.
If each Life captures a historical moment in a story, this Life is a story of the end of Spartan supremacy, an End of Days coming with its required tragedies and decay and defeats, but also some flickers of the old glory.
Isidas, the son of Phœbidas, must have been most admired both by his own countrymen and even by the enemy. He was remarkably tall and handsome, and was just of the age when boyhood merges into manhood. Naked, without either clothes or armour, having just been anointing himself at home, he rushed out of his house, with a sword in one hand and a spear in the other, ran through the front ranks, and plunged among the enemy, striking down all who opposed him. He received not a single wound, either because the gods admired his bravery and protected him, or else because he appeared to his foes to be something more than man. After this exploit we are told that the Ephors crowned him for his bravery, and fined him a thousand drachmas for having fought without his shield.
Pompeius -- Firstly, the detail that Pompeius' father Strabo was struck dead by lightning was surprisingly not mythologised, or at least not that Plutarch mentions. Anyway, Pompeius has a Life of two stories. The first story is one of a successful young general, who entered on the side of Sulla during the civil war, won some great victories in Libya, and later won a series of slightly more ambiguous contests around the Roman world, several times largely because he turned up at someone else's campaign just as they were winning it themselves, and stole the glory. This was one of Crassus' complaints against him in the matter of the Third Servile war, and it does seem to somewhat be a pattern, though clearly Pompeius contributed more than just his tardy presence.
Possibly his greatest act at this time was burning some letters. Perpenna, the man who betrayed Sertorius, tried to bargain for his own life by offering Pompeius some letters from powerful men in Rome who had written to invite Sertorius to Italy. Reading these letters and finding out who had betrayed the city was likely to start a new and possibly greater civil war than the one which had just been ended, and it's of credit to Pompeius that he recognised this and overcame temptation. However, that greater civil war could not be evaded forever.
The second story of Pompeius' life is his time in politics, which is intricately plotted but ultimately tends towards disaster. Pompeius was responsible for Caesar, both in terms of his political sponsorship of this young ally and in terms of his own example as a general exerting undue influence over the state. When he at last acknowledged Caesar as a threat, he underestimated him, putting off the creation of an army that might oppose him, which ultimately led to his own defeat, the first in his thirty-four years of generalship. It's worth noting that Pompeius, when earlier in life returning to Rome under conditions very like Caesar's, including the fear he would take the city and install himself as king, peacefully disbanded his army and won great acclaim. Did he think Caesar, so similar to him in the course of his life, would do the same? Is the typical mind fallacy responsible for the Roman Emperor?
Alexander -- This is the big pair, Alexander and Caesar. I knew they would be paired before I ever saw them in the table of contents, the choice is that clear for Plutarch. As with many others in Plutarch, this biography of Alexander is one of the few texts preserving original sources and other ancient historians' commentary on events. He does not pull punches: Alexander comes across surly and foolish, constantly bestowing his wealth to win love, prone to tantrums and often lacking in judgement.
It is related that once at a great banquet, when sitting over their wine, Kallisthenes was asked to speak in praise of the Macedonians, and that he at once poured forth such a fluent and splendid eulogy that all the company rose, vehemently applauding, and threw their garlands to him. At this Alexander remarked that, as Euripides says,
"On noble subjects, all men can speak well."
"Now," said he, "show us your ability by blaming the Macedonians, in order that they may be made better men by having their shortcomings pointed out." Kallisthenes hereupon began to speak in a depreciatory strain, and told many home-truths about the Macedonians, pointing out that Philip had become strong only because Greece was weakened by faction, and quoting the line,
"In times of trouble, bad men rise to fame."
This speech caused the Macedonians to hate him most bitterly, and provoked Alexander to say that Kallisthenes had made a display, not of his own abilities, but of his dislike to the Macedonians.
I think that captures it. Much of the Life is similar material, relating Alexander's interactions with his friends and a few of his enemies, and his conduct during his conquests. It's not a pretty picture I think precisely because Alexander was not a hard and merciless man -- he was educated in philosophy, had spoken with Aristotle and Diogenes and many others. He could be merciful, even generous, but despite all he was capable of he was fundamentally fickle in a childish way. He might shower you with gifts, or he might murder you for offending him.
Caesar -- The translators seem to dispute the opinion voiced elsewhere that the beginning of Caesar's Life is missing, though I can't see why -- the Life begins without introducing its subject at all, with a passage about an early episode in Caesar's life under Sulla that I'd estimate is at least two or three passages in if following Plutarch's usual rhythm.
One thing I wasn't aware of before was the extent to which Caesar went massively into debt in his efforts to curry political favour, to the extent that if Crassus had not stood as security for him, he would never have been able to leave Rome to take up his position in Iberia, and likely would never have launched his military career.
Despite no clean record, Caesar in general (though not as a general) seems to come off better from Plutarch than Alexander -- his failings are more commonplace in statesmen, his intentions are made more relatable, and this is all in spite of him slaughtering far more of his own people than those for whom Alexander can be held to account.
Phokion -- An admirably pithy orator:
As the smallest coins are those which have the greatest intrinsic value, so Phokion in his speeches seemed to say much with few words. We are told that once while the people were flocking into the theatre Phokion was walking up and down near the stage, plunged in thought. "You seem meditative, Phokion," said one of his friends. "Yes, by Zeus," answered he, "I am considering whether I can shorten the speech which I am going to make to the Athenians."
Also a great contrarian:
When an oracle was brought from Delphi and read before the assembly, which said that when all the Athenians were of one mind, one man would be opposed to the state, Phokion rose and said that he was the man in question, for he disapproved of the whole of their policy. And once when he made some remark in a speech which was vociferously applauded, and he saw the whole assembly unanimous in its approval of his words, he turned to some of his friends and said, "Have I inadvertently said something bad?"
This is a Life rich with quotable aphorisms and moral fables. Phokion was an incorruptible statesman who held both himself and Athens to a high standard, and while he was for many years honoured for this conduct, it provided no defence when the mob eventually turned on him.
Cato the Younger -- Great-grandson of the Elder, giving some real heft to those age comparisons. Cato, like Phokion, is a moral exemplar, utterly dedicated to honesty and public service, to the extent that his name became a byword for such:
In consequence of this there was a high opinion of him, so that an orator said to the judices on a certain trial when the evidence of a single person was produced, that it was not right to believe a single witness even if he was Cato; and many persons now were used to say when speaking of things incredible and contrary to all probability, as by way of proverb, that this could not be believed even if Cato said it.
Honestly, though, Cato comes across extremely positively in this Life, showing neither fear nor favour in his public office, being impressively prescient about Pompeius and Caesar, and demonstrating that it is possible to remain stalwart in defence of principle in a time when all those around you fall prey to bribery or terror. There is a surprisingly detailed account of his last days, in the period where he had resolved to kill himself rather than submit to Caesar, which is pretty emotional.
November 22, 2024
I couldn’t find the exact copy I read from so I put down the translator used in the book I have. We read the Life of Alexander the Great from this volume of Plutarch’s Lives. The book we used was Conversations on Character: Plutarch’s Life of Alexander the Great. The text is split up into 29 short readings with narration prompts and discussion questions. It also has accompanying videos if you want more discussion from the editor of this edition, Larry Hunt. The book is very well done, and the discussion questions were great for thinking further on the reading.
November 10, 2025
Read the sections on Caesar and Alexander. Super interesting.
April 6, 2022
Some people likely consider Alexander The Great (one of the 10 men highlighted in vol III) a maniac. After all, what fuels a compulsion to conquer the entire known world? Living in an entirely different age, however, I’ll leave that discussion and those judgements alone. As for his relationship with his own people and army, they adored him, and he was an incredibly effective leader.
I’ve seen lots of examples of leadership in my life; from the army, to church, to business. While there are many styles, they’re not equally respected or effective.
I remember one time as an enlisted soldier. I was holding the guidon company flag out in front of a formation of men at the conclusion of early morning Physical Training (PT). This put me directly behind the Company Commander and First Sergeant, and I could hear what they were saying to each other while most everyone else couldn’t. Apparently, the irritated Battalion commander had begun to notice that some of his soldiers had been showing up to PT unshaven. He had instructed his commanders to read them the riot act. This directive was relayed to the First Sergeant who traditionally conducted such briefings, however when the First Sergeant failed to rant about the shaving issue, let alone bring it up at all, the Captain came over to him a bit exasperated. “Why didn’t you talk to them about shaving?”, he asked. To which the First Sergeant replied without hesitation (we called him “Top”). “I didn’t shave this morning”, followed with the question, “Did you”? The Captain’s replied silence taught me a lot. As Top understood, expecting those you lead to do things you’re not doing, or unwilling to do yourself, is poor leadership. Alexander understood this, too.
Alexander led and fought from the front. It’s described how he would sometimes rush out to fight enemies he could easily have ordered someone else to do. Plutarch tells that he would pass luxury goods along to his troops, feeling that indulgences “were for slaves, but labour for princes”. Moreover, the longer the endeavor lasted, he “exposed himself to greater fatigues and hardships than ever in his campaigns and hunting expeditions”. It’s no wonder his men loved and adored him. He did things to earn their respect. He shared their dangers, deprivations, and accepted additional burdens, while passing the loot along. It’s no wonder they followed him to the literal ends of the known earth.
It is also worth noting that Alexander had a certain degree of self-mastery that bespoke a degree of character and leadership. Plutarch describes that after defeating King Darius he declined to do what most other conquerors of the time did, which was to despoil the royal family.
I’ve seen lots of examples of leadership in my life; from the army, to church, to business. While there are many styles, they’re not equally respected or effective.
I remember one time as an enlisted soldier. I was holding the guidon company flag out in front of a formation of men at the conclusion of early morning Physical Training (PT). This put me directly behind the Company Commander and First Sergeant, and I could hear what they were saying to each other while most everyone else couldn’t. Apparently, the irritated Battalion commander had begun to notice that some of his soldiers had been showing up to PT unshaven. He had instructed his commanders to read them the riot act. This directive was relayed to the First Sergeant who traditionally conducted such briefings, however when the First Sergeant failed to rant about the shaving issue, let alone bring it up at all, the Captain came over to him a bit exasperated. “Why didn’t you talk to them about shaving?”, he asked. To which the First Sergeant replied without hesitation (we called him “Top”). “I didn’t shave this morning”, followed with the question, “Did you”? The Captain’s replied silence taught me a lot. As Top understood, expecting those you lead to do things you’re not doing, or unwilling to do yourself, is poor leadership. Alexander understood this, too.
Alexander led and fought from the front. It’s described how he would sometimes rush out to fight enemies he could easily have ordered someone else to do. Plutarch tells that he would pass luxury goods along to his troops, feeling that indulgences “were for slaves, but labour for princes”. Moreover, the longer the endeavor lasted, he “exposed himself to greater fatigues and hardships than ever in his campaigns and hunting expeditions”. It’s no wonder his men loved and adored him. He did things to earn their respect. He shared their dangers, deprivations, and accepted additional burdens, while passing the loot along. It’s no wonder they followed him to the literal ends of the known earth.
It is also worth noting that Alexander had a certain degree of self-mastery that bespoke a degree of character and leadership. Plutarch describes that after defeating King Darius he declined to do what most other conquerors of the time did, which was to despoil the royal family.
“Yet the wife of Darius is said to have been the most beautiful princess of her age, just as Darius himself was the tallest and handsomest man in Asia, and their daughters are said to have resembled their parents in beauty. Alexander, it seems, thought it more kingly to restrain himself than to conquer the enemy, and never touched any of them, nor did he know any other before his marriage”.
September 10, 2013
Book club pick for summer
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews