Andreas

Add friend

Andreas’s Bookshelves

to-read‎ (0)

currently-reading‎ (1)

read‎ (23)

did-not-finish‎ (4)

Stats | More…

Andreas is Currently Reading

Andreas is currently reading

The Complete Collection of Plutarch's Parallel Lives

by Plutarch

bookshelves: currently-reading

Reading for the 2nd time

read in October 2026

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Andreas said:

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

" Okay so I'm writing this when I have finished Alexander and I have started Caesar, (he has just finished his campaign in Gaul). I'm reading the Waterfield translation. The translation is fine, but Waterfield himself seems completely oblivious to the Okay so I'm writing this when I have finished Alexander and I have started Caesar, (he has just finished his campaign in Gaul). I'm reading the Waterfield translation. The translation is fine, but Waterfield himself seems completely oblivious to the style of writing and upon reading the first introductory paragraph he wrote for Alexander I genuinely considered setting the entire work aside and finding a different translation because Waterfield *literally says that Plutarch is wrong in his methodology* okay bro firstly do you think your books will last for 2000 years? And secondly and more importantly: if you don't like Plutarch, why are you translating his works? Like what? Like genuinely, if you think Plutarch is wrong on a methodological level, how can you even read him? Wouldn't it be tiresome? Anyways, the problem is obviously that Dryden is like 400 years old and one of the great mistakes in translation is that people generally (not everyone) thinks that "old books must have archaic language" which is obviously wrong and I want my books to be modern if they were written in a modern tone in the original, which Plutarch clearly is.

Okay, so HONESTLY, if we're going to be really really really honest... okay it's really difficult. Here's the problem: Plutarch is extremely good at finding what is actually interesting to learn. That story of how Alexander tamed a horse was just perfect. Or Alexanders chase after the victory at Issus when Alexander pours out water. Perfect. Or Thais. Or how Alexander stopped at the statue of Xerxes and then left it lying toppled. Clitus was heart-wrenching to read. And the advice of Anaxarchus: "Is this that Alexander upon whom the whole inhabited world now fixes its eyes? Yet here he lies prostrate, weeping like a captive slave, in dread of the law and censure of men, to whom he himself ought to be a law and measure of justice, seeing that he has conquered to rule and govern, not to be enslaved by vain opinion! Do you not know, he said, that Zeus has Justice and Divine Law seated beside him as his assessors, so that whatever is done by the ruler of the realm shall be deemed lawful and just?" Wow!

Anyways... there's this interesting thing that you discover and it's not just how Alexander is altered for the worse by Persian luxury, but rather how he is essentially forgiven for this. Plutarch comes back to it time and again, and yet Plutarch essentially plays the "objective historian" that is so familiar to modern day audiences, and it just sort leaves a funny feeling in the reading like... "aren't you suppose to criticism him for it?" Like Plutarch basically never says anything bad about it, but leaves Clitus to do all of the critiquing. And you're like... why?

And then you turn to Caesar. And then it all falls into place.

Whereas Alexander can do no wrong and is above question, if Caesar holds a drink with the wrong hand, Plutarch himself will come down upon him with vengeance and say: "While it was the custom for Romans to hold their cups with the right hand, Caesar held it with his left hand to show that he was planning his overthrow of the constitution already at the age of 10." And you're like... erhm no? Where did the objective historian go? And you sort of realize (not for the first time) that the there is no such thing as an objective historian.

Take the example of Caesar in Spain. So, history has shown that Caesar was the greatest man in history. He was born to an ailing "no money" aristocratic family that lives in the slums, a weak father who decides to die when Caesar is 15, and some 35 years later Caesar rules the entire world. So we know that Caesar is #1. And clearly he knows it too, it's like if you're Einstein, you're gonna know that you are good at maths. And yet, when Caesar is 30 years old, he is sent to Spain, which is essentially to be exiled to become governor of Montana. And upon arriving, what does Caesar do? He has a mid-life crisis! What a shocker! A 30 year old that has a mid-life crisis! What a tyrant! Upon seeing a statue of Alexander (or reading a book about him like Plutarch says), Caesar begins to weep and say "When Alexander was my age he had already conquered the entire world." In other words: Caesar is a normal human being. What a shocker! And yet, this is somehow portrayed as "yet Brutus says he was ambitious... and Brutus is an honorable man." Take this for example (from EARLIER in Caesars life, when hes like 20-25) "At any rate, the person who seems to have been the first to mistrust the sperficial sparkle fo the man [Caesar] and his political programme, and to fear him as one might fear the smiling surface of the sea, and who appreciated the cunning character hidden beneath the warmth and charm of his personality - this was Cicero - used to say that he could glimpse a tyrannical purpose to all his schemes and measures with one exception: 'When I see his hair so perfectly arranged,' he said, 'and when I see him scratching his head with a single finger, I change my mind. It seems inconceivable that anything as terrible as the overthrow of the Roman constitution could ever occur to this man.'" Yes, or, here's a thought: maybe Cicero was a retard. Caesar is like 20 years old, young and handsome. What, are we supposed to think that everyone who is 20 years old and confident are secretly plotting the overthrow of the government? Was James Dean a tyrant because he was charming? Maybe Caesar just wanted a seat at the table, to be an equal among equals? Hmm.... let's look at what happens when he reaches Spain; he raises an army and conquers Portugal. Boom. Just like that. He is exiled to Montana, and upon arriving he calls the national guard and conquers Canada. In one take. And what does he do? He uses the money to pay off his debts and reward his soldiers. And suddenly "he was buying political power and loyalty from his soldiers." Yes... we all know that generals that cares about the common soldier are evil................... the hatred for Caesar is actually ridiculous. But anyways, Caesar travels back to Rome and prepares for a Triumph. Literally the biggest award any Roman could experience. Something Cicero (nor Cato obviously) never achieved, despite the fact that Cicero was literally crying to his mom "But Cilicia I was so good everyone is mean to me!" and his mom was like "I will kiss where it hurts my little baby boy." Caesar outdid Cicero already at 30 by being semi-banished to Montana. Think about that Optime-boos. Anyways, Caesar travels back to Rome for his righfully deserved Triumph, and what happens? Cato the whiner says "the constitution states that a military leader cannot stand in an election to the officer of consulship so you cannot have your triumph if you want to become consul." Oh yes, the same constitution which says that you must be a consul, which mean that you must be a senator, in order to be allowed a Triumph, *WHICH THE SENATE TOTALLY IGNORED WHEN POMPEY ASKED FOR A TRIUMPH 10 YEARS EARLIER?* Oh yes, the same constitution which also stated that you must be 42 years old to be a consul, but which elected Pompey to the consulship at the age of 36 years old. Oh yes, Cato the whiner, that constitution, which has never ever been altered even slightly for convenience sake. That is the constitution by which you seek to force Caesar to either have the biggest even of his life: a Triumph, or to *participate in the election* of consulship. Because remember it's not like Caesar enters Rome and automatically becomes consul: he enters Rome and 99% of the rich aristocracy hates him as he stands for election. And who is this Caesar? Does he, like Pompey, say "More people praise the rising sun than the setting sun?" and just marches into Rome and demands both? NO. He says: "Fine. If those are the rules; those are the rules. No Triumph." Imagine that. Imagine conquering Canada and then saying "nvm the medals, I just want to run for the Presidency." *Not even Cincinnatus*.

So, in other words, Caesar was *greater* than his reputation, and yet even Plutarch falls for the blatant propaganda of the Optimates who themselves were outmanuvered by a guy from the slums. Literally. Just read this from Plutarch, which takes place just as he enters Rome and stands for election: "As soon as he entered the city, he adopted a policy which fooled everyone except Cato. The policy was to effect a reconciliation between Pompey and Crassus, the two most influential men in the city. But by getting them to settle their differences and become friends, he channelled power away from the two of them and on to himself, and so used this apparently altruistic act gradually to bring about a revolution in Rome." WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??????????? HOW CAN CREATING POLITICAL HARMONY BE A TOOL TO BRING ABOUT REVOLUTION IN ROME!!!! HELLO??!!!! CAESAR LITERALLY CANNOT TAKE TWO ENEMIES AND MAKE THEM FRIENDS WITHOUT BEING ACCUSED OF TREASON!! He is literally the only adult in the entire city, and 2000 years later people are still salty.

OKay I'll leave this as a final note, which at the same time serves both to show Caesars greatness (which is the important thing), and secondly how weak and stupid and petty the optimates were at the time: Caesar is greater than anyone else, than Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, you name it; because Caesar fought against someone with the epithet "the Great", defeated him, and made his own name surpass that epithet. There is a reason the title became Kaiser, Tsar, Kejsare, and not "Alexander" or "Napoleon". Alexander may have become the Great, but he remained a King.

Okay so one more thing: Caesar was killed in an assassination and had basically 0 opportunity to actually mentor his successor, and yet Caesar had such skill for spotting talent and understanding of the human mind that when Caesar is killed, his successor is 18 years old, AND CAESAR PICKED THE RIGHT HORSE. Imagine that. How many 18 year olds could have survived in the position Octavian was put in? Imagine *finding Octavian*. Imagine the skill it took for Caesar to not only find someone who could shoulder his Empire, but someone who could do it under such extreme conditions. Caesar was not only Caesar, he found a second Caesar from the rubble and left nothing but his trust that "no matter the odds, you can do it." sort of thing. That's clearly something no one else *even came close to*. Alexander was a retard "to the strongest" yeah thanks for that one; Napoleon basically the same "yeah I'll just chill on this island and write my memoirs" and Genghis Khan's son bascially just chilled and built a capital; Octavian was thrown into a civil war at 18 with no training, no money, and the entire aristorcracy that hated him, and he prevailed. *Imagine the talent needed to find Octavian*. Clearly The Optimates didn't have that talent, otherwise they would have found Caesar when Caesar was 18. ...more "

Oct 27, 2026 10:27AM · see review