This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Military Leadership in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives Devin Oliver Doctorate in Classics The University of Edinburgh 2018 The candidate hereby confirms that this thesis was composed by him and represents his own work, except where credit has been given to the work of others. He furthermore confirms that no part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or qualification except as specified on the title page. Devin Oliver ii Acknowledgments Thanks are due first of all to my supervisor, Dr Calum Maciver. He wholeheartedly supported me through everything, and his insight and direction have been absolutely invaluable in the completion of this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr Sandra Bingham and Prof. Andrew Erskine, who contributed similarly vital input and encouragement throughout my research, as well as the rest of my colleagues in the Classics department at the University of Edinburgh My sincerest thanks go to Louise. Without her extraordinary patience and commitment, this thesis simply wouldn’t exist. iii Table of Contents Declaration of Own Work ii Acknowledgments iii Table of Contents iv Abstract v Lay Summary vi Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Military Narrative in Plutarch’s Lives 13 Scholarship on Plutarch’s Military Narrative 16 Readership of the Parallel Lives 21 Imitation of Generalship 27 Individual Battle Narratives 48 Conclusion 58 Chapter 2: The Character of Military Leadership: Education and Deception 62 Military Education and Character 65 Deceptive Generalship 77 Education and Deception in the Spartan Lives 89 Moral Deception in the Sertorius-Eumenes 111 Conclusion 120 Chapter 3: Synkrisis and Generalship 124 Rhetorical Purpose of the Synkriseis 132 Assessment of Generalship in the Synkriseis 139 The Unity of the Lives and Synkriseis 160 Conclusion 167 Chapter 4: Case Study of the Pyrrhus-Marius 170 Pyrrhus’ Military Leadership 174 Marius’ Military Leadership 195 Comparison of Generalship in the Pyrrhus-Marius 210 Conclusion 216 Conclusion 222 Bibliography 229 iv Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plutarch’s portrayal of military leadership in his Parallel Lives. I investigate Plutarch’s use of extended military narrative to provide examples of good generalship for his readers, his conception of the importance and dangers of a military education, his attitude toward the moral use of deception in warfare, and the importance of synkrisis to the reader’s final assessment of a general’s military ability. I conclude with a case study of the Pyrrhus-Marius, in which I examine how Plutarch uses military narrative throughout the pair to compare the generalship of the two men. I demonstrate that Plutarch’s conception of generalship in the Parallel Lives is nuanced, consistent, and often significant to the interpretation of a pair. Plutarch constructs his military narratives in such a way as to identify specific acts of generalship through which the military leaders among his readership could evaluate and improve their own generalship. Plutarch’s treatment of the morality of generalship is consistent with his views on education and character; while he accepts the necessity and appreciates the effectiveness of military deception, he also recognizes its limitations and holds up for criticism those generals who do not use it appropriately. I also examine the importance of the formal synkrisis at the end of each pair of Lives to the structural integrity of the Plutarchan book and the evaluation of military leadership in each pair. These concluding synkriseis demonstrate that Plutarch had a consistent set of criteria for evaluating the generalship of his subjects, and encourage the reader to make similar judgments on military ability themselves. This process of evaluation and comparison of military leadership is particularly important to my reading of the Pyrrhus-Marius, as comparing the military careers of its subjects allows for a more complete reading of the pair than is otherwise possible. v Lay Summary This dissertation is a study of Plutarch’s portrayal of military leadership in his Parallel Lives. I investigate Plutarch’s use of extended military narrative to provide examples of good generalship for his readers, his conception of the importance and dangers of a military education, his attitude toward the moral use of deception in warfare, and the importance of Plutarch’s formal comparisons to the reader’s final assessment of a general’s military ability. I conclude with a case study of the Pyrrhus-Marius, in which I examine how Plutarch uses military narrative throughout the pair to compare the generalship of the two men. I demonstrate that Plutarch’s conception of generalship in the Parallel Lives is nuanced, consistent, and often significant to the interpretation of a pair. Plutarch constructs his military narratives in such a way as to identify specific acts of generalship through which the military leaders among his readership could evaluate and improve their own generalship. Plutarch’s treatment of the morality of generalship is consistent with his views on education and character; while he accepts the necessity and appreciates the effectiveness of military deception, he also recognizes its limitations and holds up for criticism those generals who do not use it appropriately. I also examine the importance of the formal comparisons at the end of each pair of Lives to the structural integrity of the Plutarchan book and the evaluation of military leadership in each pair. These comparisons demonstrate that Plutarch had a consistent set of criteria for evaluating the generalship of his subjects, and encourage the reader to make similar judgments on military ability themselves. This process of evaluation and comparison of military leadership is particularly important to my reading of the Pyrrhus- Marius, as comparing the military careers of its subjects allows for a more complete reading of the pair than is otherwise possible. vi Introduction Today, Plutarch is not often read for his insight on ancient military leadership. While it is possible to find essays among the Moralia that address the campaigns of Alexander the Great or the military achievements of Athens, there are certainly no manuals of military science such as those written by Onasander or Polyaenus. Likewise, his Parallel Lives, traditionally read as historical sources as much as biographical pieces, lack the personal military commentary that can be found, for example, in the works of Xenophon. Indeed, Plutarch’s sole first-hand military knowledge appears to have come from occasional visits to battlefields such as Bedriacum (Otho 14.2) and Chaeroneia (Sulla 21.4). It is certainly tempting to take Plutarch’s assertion in the proem of the Alexander that he writes “not histories, but lives” (Alex. 1.2) as sufficient reason to ignore anything he says on the subject of military leadership. Nevertheless, it is difficult to read any of the Parallel Lives without encountering a significant amount of detail about the military achievements and careers of his subjects. Plutarch may not have been personally involved in military operations as writers like Thucydides, Xenophon, or Caesar were, but his narratives of Nicias’ Sicilian Expedition, Agesilaus’ Persian campaigns, and Caesar’s Gallic Wars nevertheless make up a substantial part of their respective Lives. Nor can these extensive military narratives be considered merely coincidental to Plutarch’s more overt interest in the character or virtue of his subjects: in all but two of the eighteen extant synkriseis to the Parallel Lives, Plutarch specifically encourages the reader to judge the military successes of his 1 subjects against each other, affording military achievement the same status in the synkriseis as political accomplishment and moral virtue.1 This thesis seeks to address the considerable amount of material to be found regarding military leadership within the Parallel Lives. Over the course of this thesis I examine the majority of the Parallel Lives to varying degrees, excepting only those few pairs whose constituent Lives lack any serious discussion of generalship.2 Through a close examination of military narrative, military education, and specific acts of generalship throughout Plutarch’s work, I will demonstrate the consistency and significance of Plutarch’s portrayal of effective military leadership within the Parallel Lives. One area of particular interest throughout my investigation is Plutarch’s frequent emphasis on imitable acts of generalship. In many Lives, such as the Lucullus, Aemilius Paulus, and Marius, Plutarch identifies discreet actions that his subjects take on the battlefield that lead to their success. He cites, for instance,