What do you think?
Rate this book
Plutarch's Lives: Life of Alexander the Great
In 336 b.c. Philip of Macedonia was assassinated and his twenty-year-old son, Alexander, inherited his kingdom. Immediately quelling rebellion, Alexander extended his father’s empire through-out the Middle East and into parts of Asia, fulfilling the soothsayer Aristander’s prediction that the new king “should perform acts so important and glorious as would make the poets and musicians of future ages labour and sweat to describe and celebrate him.”
The Life of Alexander the Great is one of the first surviving attempts to memorialize the achievements of this legendary king, remembered today as the greatest military genius of all time. This exclusive Modern Library edition, excerpted from Plutarch’s Lives, is a riveting tale of honor, power, scandal, and bravery written by the most eminent biographer of the ancient world.
The Life of Alexander the Great is one of the first surviving attempts to memorialize the achievements of this legendary king, remembered today as the greatest military genius of all time. This exclusive Modern Library edition, excerpted from Plutarch’s Lives, is a riveting tale of honor, power, scandal, and bravery written by the most eminent biographer of the ancient world.
76 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 1, 2015
83 people are currently reading
2583 people want to read
About the author
Plutarch
4,286 books926 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 - 30 of 83 reviews
December 6, 2018
The biographer/philosopher Plutarch (45 AD - 120 AD) begins his life of Alexander by stating, "It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives. And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever."
I likewise share Plutarch's interest in character rather than straight history. Here are my brief comments following passages from the text:
"For being more bent upon action and glory than either upon pleasure or riches, he esteemed all that he should receive from his father as a diminution and prevention of his own future achievements; and would have chosen rather to succeed to a kingdom involved in troubles and wars, which would have afforded him frequent exercise of his courage, and a large field of honor, than to one already flourishing and settled, where his inheritance would be an inactive life, and the mere enjoyment of wealth and luxury." ---------- Alexander seeks action to prove his courage and gain his honor - necessary quality of a conqueror. The last thing he wants is an idle life eating and drinking in his palace. Perhaps if Alexander had Plato rather than Aristotle for a teacher, he would have considered a third choice: remaining in his country and taking on the role of the ideal philosopher-king.
Plutarch relates how in Athens, the great Alexander came upon Diogenes the famous Cynic philosopher. Such followers of the Cynic way of life lived outside on the street with no possessions. Anyway, Alexander asked Diogenes if he wanted anything. "Yes," he replied, "please move as you are standing between me and the sun." Alexander was so struck by Diogenes's answer that as he told his followers who were laughing at the moroseness of the philosopher, that if he were not Alexander, he would choose to be Diogenes.
"Then he went to Delphi, to consult Apollo concerning the success of the war he had undertaken, and happening to come on one of the forbidden days, when it was esteemed improper to give any answers from the oracle, he sent messengers to desire the priestess to do her office; and when she refused, on the plea of a law to the contrary, he went up himself, and began to draw her by force into the temple,until tired and overcome with his importunity, "My son," said she, "thou art invincible." Alexander taking hold of what she spoke, declared he had received such an answer as he wished for, and that it was needless to consult the god any further." ---------- Now here is a man keen on getting what he wants, both in the sphere of humans and the gods.
"But Alexander, esteeming it more kingly to govern himself than to conquer his enemies, sought no intimacy with any one of the women before marriage, except Barsine, Memnon's widow, who was taken prisoner at Damascus." ---------- The key here for Plutarch and other Greco-Roman philosophers is Alexander's prime value of controlling himself more than controlling others. All the schools of ancient philosophy, including two main schools, Stoic and Epicurean, esteemed self-control as the prime quality in living a good life. For such a king to possess such self-control - no wonder Alexander was held in such high regard.
"He would fall into a temper of ostentation and soldierly boasting, which gave his flatterers a great advantage to ride him, and made his better friends very uneasy. For though they thought it too base to strive who should flatter him most, yet they found it hazardous not to do it." ---------- Ah, even a virtuous, heroic king has his weakness. For Plutarch, Alexander fell into the trap of bragging and boasting about how great he was and insisted others around him agree wholeheartedly. Matter of fact, Plutarch wrote a lengthy essay on the dangers of flatterers and flattery.
"Alexander was naturally most munificent, and grew more so as his fortune increased, accompanying what he gave with that courtesy and freedom, which, to speak truth, is necessary to make a benefit really obliging." ---------- A reader can sense Plutarch swelling with joy as he relates how young Alexander's greatness of character increased as his conquests increased. All the more impressive since Alexander was doing his conquering in his 20s. What a golden boy!
"In this voyage, he took ten of the Indian philosophers prisoners. These men were reputed to be extremely ready and succinct in their answers, which he made trial of, by putting difficult questions to them, letting them know that those whose answers were not pertinent, should be put to death." ---------- Alexander values philosophy and has high expectations from philosophers. All ten answers to Alexander's ten questions are jewels. Here is my favorite: Which is the most cunning of beasts? "That," said the philosopher, "which men have not yet found out."
"When once Alexander had given way to fears of supernatural influence, his mind grew so disturbed and so easily alarmed, that if the least unusual or extraordinary thing happened, he thought it a prodigy or a presage, and his court was thronged with diviners and priests whose business was to sacrifice and purify and foretell the future. So miserable a thing is incredulity and contempt of divine power on the one hand, and so miserable, also, superstition on the other, which like water, where the level has been lowered, flowing inland never stopping, fills the mind with slavish fears and follies, as now in Alexander's case." ---------- Fear of the supernatural was an ever present reality among the ancients. Even the conqueror of the world was caught in the belly of fear. No wonder Epicurus was considered a savior by his followers when he stated in his Principal Doctrines that the gods are living in complete bliss, thus unconcerned with human affairs.
Plutarch's Lives are available on-line: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu...
July 16, 2022
The Life of Alexander by Plutarch.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This is another text I read for the Online Great Books program.
Alexander has had great press. In our OGB Zoom seminar, Alexander was picked as "favorite" by a plurality of the group. The general consensus was that he was "awesome."
Alexander certainly was awesome. He started his world-conquering career as a teenager. He died of either a fever or poisoning in his early thirties. In between, he beat the Persian Empire in three straight-up battles that resulted in the decapitation of the empire, which was then replaced by the Macedonian elite. Alexander took his army from one end of the empire to the other - Egypt, Afghanistan, and India.
The impression I got in my reading was that the Macedonians were like a motorcycle gang and Alexander was the leader of the gang. The Macedonians descended on the largely peaceful Persian empire like Marlon Brando's motorcycle taking over a sleepy rural town. The next thing you know, they are tearing up the gardens of Persopolis and sleeping with Persian women. The Macedonians were the barbarians at the gates in that reading.
Of course, to hear the Greeks tell it, they were the carriers of high culture, including philosophy. Alexander was depicted as the scion of that high culture. Aristotle, after all, was one of his instructors.
And, yet, Alexander was a thug. Aside from courageously throwing himself into tight situations in battle, he was not above killing Macedonians, e.g., Cletus the Black, in drunken fits. Alexander was responsible for the death of thousands for his personal glory, particularly in his gratuitous invasion of India.
A new thing I learned from Plutarch was the disputed issue of Alexander's death. Was Alexander poisoned or did he die of fever? Further, what was Aristotle's involvement in that death? Did he recommend the poison? Plutarch doesn't give any firm answers, and it isn't something I had heard before, but it is an interesting angle.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This is another text I read for the Online Great Books program.
Alexander has had great press. In our OGB Zoom seminar, Alexander was picked as "favorite" by a plurality of the group. The general consensus was that he was "awesome."
Alexander certainly was awesome. He started his world-conquering career as a teenager. He died of either a fever or poisoning in his early thirties. In between, he beat the Persian Empire in three straight-up battles that resulted in the decapitation of the empire, which was then replaced by the Macedonian elite. Alexander took his army from one end of the empire to the other - Egypt, Afghanistan, and India.
The impression I got in my reading was that the Macedonians were like a motorcycle gang and Alexander was the leader of the gang. The Macedonians descended on the largely peaceful Persian empire like Marlon Brando's motorcycle taking over a sleepy rural town. The next thing you know, they are tearing up the gardens of Persopolis and sleeping with Persian women. The Macedonians were the barbarians at the gates in that reading.
Of course, to hear the Greeks tell it, they were the carriers of high culture, including philosophy. Alexander was depicted as the scion of that high culture. Aristotle, after all, was one of his instructors.
And, yet, Alexander was a thug. Aside from courageously throwing himself into tight situations in battle, he was not above killing Macedonians, e.g., Cletus the Black, in drunken fits. Alexander was responsible for the death of thousands for his personal glory, particularly in his gratuitous invasion of India.
A new thing I learned from Plutarch was the disputed issue of Alexander's death. Was Alexander poisoned or did he die of fever? Further, what was Aristotle's involvement in that death? Did he recommend the poison? Plutarch doesn't give any firm answers, and it isn't something I had heard before, but it is an interesting angle.
April 21, 2019
It is such a joy to read Plutarch. Having lived 300 odd years after Alexander the Great's time, we cannot know for certain what is fact or fiction, but this biography reads as something a little more legitimate than other books of the time as it does not delve too deeply into mythology.
On a side note: I don't generally read introductions to books that aren't written by the author themself. I happened to read the introduction to this one, to my disappointment. Victor Davis Hanson uses both Marx and Freud to justify that Alexander is undeserving of admiration. What an absolute fool.
On a side note: I don't generally read introductions to books that aren't written by the author themself. I happened to read the introduction to this one, to my disappointment. Victor Davis Hanson uses both Marx and Freud to justify that Alexander is undeserving of admiration. What an absolute fool.
May 5, 2019
Conqueror of Persia
5 May 2019
Okay, I know I may be being a little particular here, but there is one thing that Plutarch gets wrong with Alexander and that is that he isn’t actually Greek – he is Macedonean. Look, that might be a much of a muchness, like suggesting that Tasmanians aren’t strictly Australian, however if you happen to know any Macedoneans, as I do since not only have I worked with them, but I also live a couple of doors down the road from one, you would know that one thing they do not want to be associated with are the Greeks. This of course creates something of a bone of contention when it comes to Alexander because the Greeks claim that he is Greek (and why wouldn’t you), while the Macedonians outright reject that. As for me, well, yeah, I label him as a Macedonian, even though I am not Macedonian, but I guess that might have something to do with my Classical education.
So, now that we have that out of the way it is interesting how Plutarch opens this biography, and that is by linking Alexander with the divinities of mythology. Sure, they aren’t necessarily going to say that he is the direct son of Zeus, particularly since we all know who is father, and his mother, happened to be. However, that doesn’t stop the historians from creating a lineage that sort of, well, traces him back to Achilles through his son Neoptolemus. Yeah, I guess the statement at the end of the biography where Alexander is speaking to an Indian philosopher who says that the best way to prove to people that you are a god is to do something that a mortal man cannot do proves to be true.
Well, I guess you can say he did that – he not only conquered Persia, but he pretty much conquered all of the territory between Greece and India, as well as achieving something that the Russians, Britains, and Americans have failed to do with all of their modern technology – conquer Afghanistan. In fact, I used to work with an Afghani and she told me that the Afghani people absolutely adore Alexander, probably because there happens to be quite a lot of people who can trace their ancestry back to the Bactrian Greeks who used to inhabit the area.
Okay, the British held a much larger empire than Alexander, but they had ships, and an industrial revolution behind them. So did the Romans, but they took centuries to carve out the empire. Then we have the Mongols who blitzkrieged across the Russian Steppes, but once again they were, well, at little slow, taking 53 years to carve out the empire that they did – Alexander took 11 years. Now that is impressive. Look, while there were quite a few flaws in what he did – namely because he basically uses the Thanos theory of teamwork – if you want something done properly, do it yourself – his conquests were still pretty impressive.
Yeah, he basically commanded his army, and the army followed him and basically he conquered every place that he went. There is a little bit of a problem with that, as we know, because when he died his empire pretty quickly split up. That also happened with the Mongols, but even then the conquests lasted sometime after the death of Genghis Kahn. The other thing is that Genghis Kahn sent out armies, so they were basically conquering territory in every direction. This is a similar thing with Rome, which divided their army into legions, and various commanders, such a Caeser, were responsible for them. Not only that but they were able to consolidate their conquests, which is why they took so long.
This is something that Alexander was never able to do, though we should remember that the whole purpose of his conquests was to chase down Darius. After defeating him at the battle of Granicus River, he basically wasn’t willing to leave things undone, particularly since Darius managed to escape. However, before going into the heart of the empire he needed to secure his flanks, which is why he captured Tyre and went into Egypt. However, after capturing Babylon, and then marching on Darius for the final time, you could say that he had probably earnt a well deserved rest. It turned out that he was a little restless because he found himself on the far side of Persia, so why not go and see what else he could do.
The interesting thing is that he was able to take Afghanistan, which would have pretty much been similar then as it is now – a collection of fierce tribes. Yet this wasn’t an issue for him, but that was probably because he came, saw, and then moved south across the Hindu Kush (and the fact that he was able to move his army through there is also pretty impressive, considering the difficulties that Hannibul faced when crossing the Alps, and I would hardly consider the Hindu Kush being less harsh than that, if the name is anything to go by).
Yet by the time he got to India you could say that he had probably met his match, and in a way I am inclined to agree. In a way capturing Persia was probably the easier part because he didn’t have too much of an issue heading further into central Asia, despite the possibility that he had a potential enemy at his back. In a way Persia had been subjugated, and the fact that he was able to return and set himself up in Babylon is a testament to that. Yet India, I’m not entirely sure if he could had succeeded in India – India is a pretty big place and I doubt he could have effectively subjegated all of the kingdoms that he would have needed to to have succeeded. The other thing is that the route back to Persia was pretty nasty in itself, and in making the trek he literally lost a quarter of his army – there was no way he was going to return.
Interestingly, I don’t think Alexander was the type of person who really could have settled down. Sure, he didn’t live long after returning to Babylon, and in fact it sounds as if he had decided to live it up. One suggestion I once read was that he had planned to march into Arabia, but honestly, if he had trouble surviving the trek through Pakistan, I doubt he could have survived Arabia.
5 May 2019
Okay, I know I may be being a little particular here, but there is one thing that Plutarch gets wrong with Alexander and that is that he isn’t actually Greek – he is Macedonean. Look, that might be a much of a muchness, like suggesting that Tasmanians aren’t strictly Australian, however if you happen to know any Macedoneans, as I do since not only have I worked with them, but I also live a couple of doors down the road from one, you would know that one thing they do not want to be associated with are the Greeks. This of course creates something of a bone of contention when it comes to Alexander because the Greeks claim that he is Greek (and why wouldn’t you), while the Macedonians outright reject that. As for me, well, yeah, I label him as a Macedonian, even though I am not Macedonian, but I guess that might have something to do with my Classical education.
So, now that we have that out of the way it is interesting how Plutarch opens this biography, and that is by linking Alexander with the divinities of mythology. Sure, they aren’t necessarily going to say that he is the direct son of Zeus, particularly since we all know who is father, and his mother, happened to be. However, that doesn’t stop the historians from creating a lineage that sort of, well, traces him back to Achilles through his son Neoptolemus. Yeah, I guess the statement at the end of the biography where Alexander is speaking to an Indian philosopher who says that the best way to prove to people that you are a god is to do something that a mortal man cannot do proves to be true.
Well, I guess you can say he did that – he not only conquered Persia, but he pretty much conquered all of the territory between Greece and India, as well as achieving something that the Russians, Britains, and Americans have failed to do with all of their modern technology – conquer Afghanistan. In fact, I used to work with an Afghani and she told me that the Afghani people absolutely adore Alexander, probably because there happens to be quite a lot of people who can trace their ancestry back to the Bactrian Greeks who used to inhabit the area.
Okay, the British held a much larger empire than Alexander, but they had ships, and an industrial revolution behind them. So did the Romans, but they took centuries to carve out the empire. Then we have the Mongols who blitzkrieged across the Russian Steppes, but once again they were, well, at little slow, taking 53 years to carve out the empire that they did – Alexander took 11 years. Now that is impressive. Look, while there were quite a few flaws in what he did – namely because he basically uses the Thanos theory of teamwork – if you want something done properly, do it yourself – his conquests were still pretty impressive.
Yeah, he basically commanded his army, and the army followed him and basically he conquered every place that he went. There is a little bit of a problem with that, as we know, because when he died his empire pretty quickly split up. That also happened with the Mongols, but even then the conquests lasted sometime after the death of Genghis Kahn. The other thing is that Genghis Kahn sent out armies, so they were basically conquering territory in every direction. This is a similar thing with Rome, which divided their army into legions, and various commanders, such a Caeser, were responsible for them. Not only that but they were able to consolidate their conquests, which is why they took so long.
This is something that Alexander was never able to do, though we should remember that the whole purpose of his conquests was to chase down Darius. After defeating him at the battle of Granicus River, he basically wasn’t willing to leave things undone, particularly since Darius managed to escape. However, before going into the heart of the empire he needed to secure his flanks, which is why he captured Tyre and went into Egypt. However, after capturing Babylon, and then marching on Darius for the final time, you could say that he had probably earnt a well deserved rest. It turned out that he was a little restless because he found himself on the far side of Persia, so why not go and see what else he could do.
The interesting thing is that he was able to take Afghanistan, which would have pretty much been similar then as it is now – a collection of fierce tribes. Yet this wasn’t an issue for him, but that was probably because he came, saw, and then moved south across the Hindu Kush (and the fact that he was able to move his army through there is also pretty impressive, considering the difficulties that Hannibul faced when crossing the Alps, and I would hardly consider the Hindu Kush being less harsh than that, if the name is anything to go by).
Yet by the time he got to India you could say that he had probably met his match, and in a way I am inclined to agree. In a way capturing Persia was probably the easier part because he didn’t have too much of an issue heading further into central Asia, despite the possibility that he had a potential enemy at his back. In a way Persia had been subjugated, and the fact that he was able to return and set himself up in Babylon is a testament to that. Yet India, I’m not entirely sure if he could had succeeded in India – India is a pretty big place and I doubt he could have effectively subjegated all of the kingdoms that he would have needed to to have succeeded. The other thing is that the route back to Persia was pretty nasty in itself, and in making the trek he literally lost a quarter of his army – there was no way he was going to return.
Interestingly, I don’t think Alexander was the type of person who really could have settled down. Sure, he didn’t live long after returning to Babylon, and in fact it sounds as if he had decided to live it up. One suggestion I once read was that he had planned to march into Arabia, but honestly, if he had trouble surviving the trek through Pakistan, I doubt he could have survived Arabia.
Read
February 2, 2021Obviously this is a favorite and I always enjoy re-reading it.
May 29, 2017
Alexander the Great (-356 to – 323 BC)
The Biographie by Plutarque (46 – 125)
The issue is not how long you live, but how intense.
Alexander must have known these ancient words of philosophy. He had Aristotle as his mentor and teacher.
Fighting countless fierce battles, subduing more kings and conquering more empires than any other hero, it is no wonder he was called ‘The Great’.
He died at the age of only 33 years, and not in a battle, as one would expect, but of a vicious fever.
His short life could be described in three chapters:
- Education by Leonidas, Lysimachus, and later Aristotle for education in sciences and philosophy. His understanding and knowledge were soon far ahead of his age. His character was ambition, courage, and pride. He would compete in sports competition only if he had Kings as opponents.
His encounter and mastery of his future favorite horse, Bucéphal, which made his father King Philippe cry out in pride: ‘O my son! You will have to search for a kingdom worthy of you; Macedonia is too little.’
- Having obtained at the temple of Delphi the oracle of “O my son, you are invincible” he was confident and set out to conquer Asia. His expedition was composed of about thirty thousand foot soldiers and five thousand horsemen. He had spent all his money on the preparation of his army, and when asked by Perdiccas what he kept for himself, he said: ‘Hope’. And so his officers were prepared to follow him by the same motivation.
- Battle after battle, fight after fight, march after march, conquest after conquest, always further East.
- One day, conquering the city of Gordium, he was shown an ancient chariot with an Oracle attached to it: whoever could undo the mighty knot attaching the drawbar to the axle, would be proclaimed ‘Master of the Universe’.
Alexander slashed the knot with a stroke of his sword.
- The mighty battle that the Macedonians fought and won against Darius, King of Persia, may be called the culmination of all wars. Up to this point Alexander was still a generous victor and treated royalty like equals, and never punished, tortured or killed anybody if unjustified.
- Now Alexander was proclaimed “King of Asia”.
- He was as generous as ever, but his self-esteem and pride had no limit. His reputation had more value to him than life or empire. He distributed gold and riches but harvested jealousy
and reproach. Conspiracies were now planned against him, some imaginary and some real. He had traitors tortured and executed. But he also killed Cletus, one of his dearest friends in a rage of drunken dispute.
His Macedonians had had enough and wanted to return to Greece. Alexander pushed them on to further conquests and never-ending battles.
All along, Plutarch has a marvelous way of digressing into colorful details, a great pleasure to read.
The Biographie by Plutarque (46 – 125)
The issue is not how long you live, but how intense.
Alexander must have known these ancient words of philosophy. He had Aristotle as his mentor and teacher.
Fighting countless fierce battles, subduing more kings and conquering more empires than any other hero, it is no wonder he was called ‘The Great’.
He died at the age of only 33 years, and not in a battle, as one would expect, but of a vicious fever.
His short life could be described in three chapters:
- Education by Leonidas, Lysimachus, and later Aristotle for education in sciences and philosophy. His understanding and knowledge were soon far ahead of his age. His character was ambition, courage, and pride. He would compete in sports competition only if he had Kings as opponents.
His encounter and mastery of his future favorite horse, Bucéphal, which made his father King Philippe cry out in pride: ‘O my son! You will have to search for a kingdom worthy of you; Macedonia is too little.’
- Having obtained at the temple of Delphi the oracle of “O my son, you are invincible” he was confident and set out to conquer Asia. His expedition was composed of about thirty thousand foot soldiers and five thousand horsemen. He had spent all his money on the preparation of his army, and when asked by Perdiccas what he kept for himself, he said: ‘Hope’. And so his officers were prepared to follow him by the same motivation.
- Battle after battle, fight after fight, march after march, conquest after conquest, always further East.
- One day, conquering the city of Gordium, he was shown an ancient chariot with an Oracle attached to it: whoever could undo the mighty knot attaching the drawbar to the axle, would be proclaimed ‘Master of the Universe’.
Alexander slashed the knot with a stroke of his sword.
- The mighty battle that the Macedonians fought and won against Darius, King of Persia, may be called the culmination of all wars. Up to this point Alexander was still a generous victor and treated royalty like equals, and never punished, tortured or killed anybody if unjustified.
- Now Alexander was proclaimed “King of Asia”.
- He was as generous as ever, but his self-esteem and pride had no limit. His reputation had more value to him than life or empire. He distributed gold and riches but harvested jealousy
and reproach. Conspiracies were now planned against him, some imaginary and some real. He had traitors tortured and executed. But he also killed Cletus, one of his dearest friends in a rage of drunken dispute.
His Macedonians had had enough and wanted to return to Greece. Alexander pushed them on to further conquests and never-ending battles.
All along, Plutarch has a marvelous way of digressing into colorful details, a great pleasure to read.
February 24, 2022
Growing up all of my history textbooks created sort of an awe for Alexander the Great in me, but Plutarch greatly influenced this toward the negative. Alexander seems to have had a great beginning and a slow demise brought about by a lack of self control and a lot of fear. We had some good conversations come up because of it and by the end we were all glad to leave Alexander behind. 😆
July 20, 2007
You've seen the movie, but is it accurate? You won't know until you read books such as Plutarch's account of Alexander the Great.
I did my thesis on Alexander the Great in college. Among a lot of other books, this account of Alexander's life as told by Plutarch, provided me with accurate information on both his life and the culture of his time and I used this as a prominent resource in my research. However, while it is historical and educational, it is also a very interesting read.
If you would like to learn about Alexander the Great...about why he lived life as he did, how he accomplished so much in his life...and when he accomplished it; read this book. You will walk away with accurate knowledge of how Alexander earned his named "The Great."
I did my thesis on Alexander the Great in college. Among a lot of other books, this account of Alexander's life as told by Plutarch, provided me with accurate information on both his life and the culture of his time and I used this as a prominent resource in my research. However, while it is historical and educational, it is also a very interesting read.
If you would like to learn about Alexander the Great...about why he lived life as he did, how he accomplished so much in his life...and when he accomplished it; read this book. You will walk away with accurate knowledge of how Alexander earned his named "The Great."
March 15, 2021
This could have used some footnotes to help a bit! That being said, this was really interesting. It draws a perfect portrait of Alexander the Great, it could have been longer, and I already have a longer biography of him so I will go deeper eventually. Still it builds solid base to my exploration of this historical character. I learn and I enjoy! Good book!
August 14, 2015
"..braver by far than yourself was Patroclus, but death did not spare him either."
-Callisthenes to Alexander
Alexander's funeral procession, as described by Diodorus
-Callisthenes to Alexander
Alexander's funeral procession, as described by Diodorus
Read
November 28, 2025excellent book. I love how Plutarch switches between myth/legend and history/biography. To people in Rome the existence of magic/prophecy/the gods was just a fact of life so from his point of view it seemed perfectly reasonable and realistic.
For example:
“The night before the consummation of their marriage, she dreamed that a thunderbolt fell upon her body, which kindled a great fire, whose divided flames dispersed themselves all about, and then were extinguished. And Philip some time after he was married, dreamt that he sealed up his wife’s body with a seal, whose impression, as he fancied, was the figure of a lion.”
It goes without saying that this doesn't align with the modern academic approach to biography writing, wherein belief in prophecy would be discussed from a purely academic, analytical, dispassionate perspective, because prophecy was just accepted as fact to Plutarch, and Plutarch himself was relying on primary sources that probably explored the element of prophecy more in-depth.
Here is another example:
“(Philip) was told (by the oracle that) he should one day lose that eye with which he presumed to peep through the chink of the door, when he saw the god, under the form of a serpent, in the company of his wife. (...) Olympia (...) told him (Alexander) the secret of his birth, and bade him behave himself with courage suitable to his divine extraction.”
I loved it. I loved this because it's so interesting and it provides insight into the Roman perspective. I wish I could unread this so I could read it again for the first time.
For example:
“The night before the consummation of their marriage, she dreamed that a thunderbolt fell upon her body, which kindled a great fire, whose divided flames dispersed themselves all about, and then were extinguished. And Philip some time after he was married, dreamt that he sealed up his wife’s body with a seal, whose impression, as he fancied, was the figure of a lion.”
It goes without saying that this doesn't align with the modern academic approach to biography writing, wherein belief in prophecy would be discussed from a purely academic, analytical, dispassionate perspective, because prophecy was just accepted as fact to Plutarch, and Plutarch himself was relying on primary sources that probably explored the element of prophecy more in-depth.
Here is another example:
“(Philip) was told (by the oracle that) he should one day lose that eye with which he presumed to peep through the chink of the door, when he saw the god, under the form of a serpent, in the company of his wife. (...) Olympia (...) told him (Alexander) the secret of his birth, and bade him behave himself with courage suitable to his divine extraction.”
I loved it. I loved this because it's so interesting and it provides insight into the Roman perspective. I wish I could unread this so I could read it again for the first time.
February 14, 2022
Plutarch declares in the first few lines of this work: "It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives." He stays true to it and furnishes us with a chronicling of the life of Alexander, expatiating on the kind of man he was, his virtues and vices, what drove him and broke him, the character traits that led to his victories and accomplishments, and the flaws even great men such as he possessed. It helps contextualize the life of such a mythical figure whose name is known by children world over even 2350 years after his passing. Plutarch keeps him real and paints a full portrait of Alexander rather than attempting to write a story of stunning glory and tragic early downfall. This is not a tale to give you goosebumps or shake you with chills, it's an insightful character sketch and biography of the philosopher-general who conquered half the world.
3 stars for delivering well on what he promised, but no more because it's rather prosaic and factual, often alternating between too concise and too verbose.
3 stars for delivering well on what he promised, but no more because it's rather prosaic and factual, often alternating between too concise and too verbose.
October 27, 2013
Amazing biography to explain why Alexander is the greatest warrior of all time
October 30, 2016
Plutarch! This is little more than a timeline.
March 31, 2025
My favorite of Plutarch's lives by far!
April 8, 2025
Mid bruh, lecturer was cool though
June 11, 2017
Many thanks to Plutarch for such great job he has done. It is a fact that He was not a father of biography genre, but he undoubtedly enriched this genre. To quote more than 150 historians in his Live's and spending more than 20 years and that's I guess a massive job to do. -
-Plutarch's ostensible intent was to remind Greeks in their third century of relatively humane Roman rule, that even if their once-populated countryside was now deserted and their cities were often in ruins, their own more spirited ancestors of centuries past had matched and indeed often surpassed the achievements of the Roman ruling class.
" It is a lovely thing to live with courage, and to die and to leave behind everlasting renown, " this short quote of his tells a lot about his true essence.
In my perception, he was more idealistic than the pragmatic king. The first westerner who marched against minor Asia and beyond ( how we call it now the middle east ). Ironically, only 2000 years after, westerners managed to step up a second time. His courage almost killed him and his Macedonian army at Hydaspes when he was marching against huge elephants. Injured many times in the battle, which I never read before.
He always tried to pursue his glory by entering directly in to the fight, and as a leader urged his army to do the same. With a considerably small army appr. 50,000 men, he won the battle against Darius king of Persia with more than 200,000 men.
Along with being a great strategist, he did a good job in diplomacy too.
From hence he marched into Parthia where not having much to do, he first put on the barbaric dress, perhaps with the view of making the work of civilizing them easier, as nothing gains more upon men than conformity to their fashions and customs. Or another account -
-He followed not the Median fashion, which was altogether foreign and uncouth. He had adopted neither the trousers nor the sleeved vest, nor the tiara for the head, but taking a middle way between the Persian mode and the Macedonian, so contrived his habit that it was not so flaunting as the one, and yet more pump us and magnificent than the other.
Or showing mercy to the royal family in Persia, and taking as a wife of fallen King Darius's daughter.
Meanwhile, Plutarch described him also as the noblest king, in respect toward to the fallen nations and also to his friends and his regular soldiers.
~ One of the common soldiers was driving a mule laden with some of the king's treasure , the beast grew tired, and the soldier took it upon his own back, and began to march with it, till Alexander seeing the man so overcharged asked what was the matter; and when he was informed, just as he was ready to lay down his burden for weariness, "Do not faint now," said he to him ,"but finish the journey, and carry what you have there to your tent for yourself."
He was always more displeased with those who would not accept of what he gave than with those who begged of him. And therefore he wrote to Phocion, that he would not own him for this friend any longer if he refused his presents.
His highest idealism shows this quote: "Telling them, he wondered that they who had been engaged in so many single battles did not know by experience. That those who labour sleep more sweetly and soundly than those who are labored for, and could fail to see by comparing the Persians manner of living with their own that it was the most abject and slavish condition to be voluptuous , but the most noble and royal to undergo pain and labour. "
"Are you still to learn," said he, "that the end and perfection of our victories are to avoid the vices and infirmities of those whom we subdue ?"
-Plutarch's ostensible intent was to remind Greeks in their third century of relatively humane Roman rule, that even if their once-populated countryside was now deserted and their cities were often in ruins, their own more spirited ancestors of centuries past had matched and indeed often surpassed the achievements of the Roman ruling class.
" It is a lovely thing to live with courage, and to die and to leave behind everlasting renown, " this short quote of his tells a lot about his true essence.
In my perception, he was more idealistic than the pragmatic king. The first westerner who marched against minor Asia and beyond ( how we call it now the middle east ). Ironically, only 2000 years after, westerners managed to step up a second time. His courage almost killed him and his Macedonian army at Hydaspes when he was marching against huge elephants. Injured many times in the battle, which I never read before.
He always tried to pursue his glory by entering directly in to the fight, and as a leader urged his army to do the same. With a considerably small army appr. 50,000 men, he won the battle against Darius king of Persia with more than 200,000 men.
Along with being a great strategist, he did a good job in diplomacy too.
From hence he marched into Parthia where not having much to do, he first put on the barbaric dress, perhaps with the view of making the work of civilizing them easier, as nothing gains more upon men than conformity to their fashions and customs. Or another account -
-He followed not the Median fashion, which was altogether foreign and uncouth. He had adopted neither the trousers nor the sleeved vest, nor the tiara for the head, but taking a middle way between the Persian mode and the Macedonian, so contrived his habit that it was not so flaunting as the one, and yet more pump us and magnificent than the other.
Or showing mercy to the royal family in Persia, and taking as a wife of fallen King Darius's daughter.
Meanwhile, Plutarch described him also as the noblest king, in respect toward to the fallen nations and also to his friends and his regular soldiers.
~ One of the common soldiers was driving a mule laden with some of the king's treasure , the beast grew tired, and the soldier took it upon his own back, and began to march with it, till Alexander seeing the man so overcharged asked what was the matter; and when he was informed, just as he was ready to lay down his burden for weariness, "Do not faint now," said he to him ,"but finish the journey, and carry what you have there to your tent for yourself."
He was always more displeased with those who would not accept of what he gave than with those who begged of him. And therefore he wrote to Phocion, that he would not own him for this friend any longer if he refused his presents.
His highest idealism shows this quote: "Telling them, he wondered that they who had been engaged in so many single battles did not know by experience. That those who labour sleep more sweetly and soundly than those who are labored for, and could fail to see by comparing the Persians manner of living with their own that it was the most abject and slavish condition to be voluptuous , but the most noble and royal to undergo pain and labour. "
"Are you still to learn," said he, "that the end and perfection of our victories are to avoid the vices and infirmities of those whom we subdue ?"
May 22, 2009
La historia de Alejandro es contada con bastante habilidad por Plutarco, desde su nacimiento hasta su muerte. Plutarco la tiñe constantemente de una visión moralizante: Alejandro es ejemplo de virtud, lo que explica su éxito (cuando cae en la soberbia y la injusticia, sobrevinene su desgracia, aunque la relación causal nos ea explícita).
Es inetresante, después de haber leído libros como el de Manfredi, acercarse a una de las principales fuentes sobre Alejandro, y contrarrestar luego al información históricamente plausible con toda la que ha sido añadida por una "legendarización" posterior del personaje, en manos de la literatura medieval tanto como de los best-sellers modernos.
Recomendable para quien se interese en la historia -de verdad.
Es inetresante, después de haber leído libros como el de Manfredi, acercarse a una de las principales fuentes sobre Alejandro, y contrarrestar luego al información históricamente plausible con toda la que ha sido añadida por una "legendarización" posterior del personaje, en manos de la literatura medieval tanto como de los best-sellers modernos.
Recomendable para quien se interese en la historia -de verdad.
October 6, 2025
Reading the lives of Plutarch is akin to reading a mini Homeric epic. In many ways, Alexander images the glory of a king. Alexander was a forerunner to Aurelius in military conquest as the undefeated king. Yet he was a man of the people who was both mighty and meek. He was a merciful king who made his enemies his friends. As Lewis says in his description of the ideal king, Alexander was the first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat.
February 10, 2017
საერთოდ, ბიოგრაფია უაღრესად საინტერესო საკითხავია.
განსაკუთრებით- პლუტარქე. მოკლედ, კონკრეტულად და მხატვრულად აღწერს დიდი ადამიანების ცხოვრებას.
ალექსანდრე, შესანიშნავი იყო. ფაქტები იყო უამრავი, მაგრამ ჩემთვის უფრო მნიშვნელოვანი გახლდათ მისი დამოკიდებულება ცხოვრების მიმართ, მისი ქცევები და არა მის მიერ გადახდილი ომის შედეგები.
განსაკუთრებით- პლუტარქე. მოკლედ, კონკრეტულად და მხატვრულად აღწერს დიდი ადამიანების ცხოვრებას.
ალექსანდრე, შესანიშნავი იყო. ფაქტები იყო უამრავი, მაგრამ ჩემთვის უფრო მნიშვნელოვანი გახლდათ მისი დამოკიდებულება ცხოვრების მიმართ, მისი ქცევები და არა მის მიერ გადახდილი ომის შედეგები.
January 10, 2009
I actually liked it more than I thought I would. Alexander did lead an interesting life, to say the least. Harder to read than a lot of other books, it was worth it because I actually took away nerdy knowledge I will now be able to use in conversations to appear smarter than I actually am.
October 16, 2017
Great book to understand Alexander the man
Plutarch makes no illusions - he doesn’t write histories, but lives. He’s more interested in the souls of men. He is mostly very positive about Alexander, but shows how Alexander lost the moderation that made him great. Great book.
Plutarch makes no illusions - he doesn’t write histories, but lives. He’s more interested in the souls of men. He is mostly very positive about Alexander, but shows how Alexander lost the moderation that made him great. Great book.
September 2, 2018
Had to read for GoT history class. Good stories. Entertaining. Hard to read though. I would pay someone good money to translate this into modern English! Lots of "wont" and "fain" and just...ugh.
January 26, 2021
A good description of the life of Alexander which I read for a university tutorial. There are obviously inaccuracies and exaggeration but it is still one of the best sources that we have for his life.
May 1, 2023
Read this for a class. It was interesting, but clearly biased. Obviously Plutarch despsied Olympias and thought Alexander was great (contradicting many other sources I've read, but who knows which is right).
June 26, 2024
His father shedding tears, it is said, for joy, kissed him as he came down from his horse, and in his transport said, “O my son, look thee out a kingdom equal to and worthy of thyself, for Macedonia is too little for thee.”
September 5, 2010
assigned college reading
January 30, 2019
Greattt
Good one from the author!!! Really enjoyed while reading this book !!! Will definitely recommend this book to all my friends !!!
Good one from the author!!! Really enjoyed while reading this book !!! Will definitely recommend this book to all my friends !!!
Read
March 6, 2021I didn't read this exact translation but close enough.
March 17, 2021
Recensione sul blog Alessandro III di Macedonia- Alessandro Magno & Ellenismo
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews