Plutarch's closing synkrisis to the paired Life of Lucullus and Life of Cimon, an eighteen-paragraph judicial balancing of a Roman conqueror against an Athenian one on the grounds of character, generalship, and fortune.
This short comparison essay closes the paired biographies of the Roman general Lucullus and the Athenian general Cimon, the two men Plutarch has just set side by side because both won brilliant campaigns against Persian power in Asia and both later saw their standing at home collapse. Rather than narrate new events, Plutarch here functions as a judge, weighing the two lives against a fixed set of criteria: the manner of their deaths, how they spent their wealth, their conduct as young men versus old men, their generalship on land and sea, their relations with their own soldiers and allies, and the scale of the enemies they defeated.
The comparison unfolds point by point. Plutarch first credits Lucullus with dying before Rome's civil wars fully consumed the republic, then immediately gives Cimon the same credit and more, since Cimon died in active command rather than retiring into pleasure. He contrasts the two men's use of wealth (Cimon's public generosity against Lucullus's private extravagance), their youths (Cimon's disreputable start against Lucullus's disciplined one, inverted by how each aged), and their command style (Lucullus was abandoned by mutinous troops, while Cimon's allies transferred their loyalty to him). Only in raw military scale does Plutarch tip the balance toward Lucullus, cataloguing his crossing of the Taurus and Tigris and the fall of Tigranocerta, Cabira, Sinope, and Nisibis against a far larger and less broken enemy than the one Cimon faced.
The piece matters historically as a specimen of Plutarch's method at its purest: the synkrisis was the organizing device of the entire Parallel Lives project, and this is one of the clearest surviving examples of how Plutarch actually adjudicated a pairing rather than merely narrating it. It shows a first-century Greek moralist under Roman rule measuring a still-living imperial power against the memory of classical Athens, refusing to let either patriotism or admiration for scale settle the verdict, and ending, characteristically, by declining to hand down a clean winner.
“One might especially call Lucullus fortunate in the manner of his end, because before the change of fate which was already being fashioned against the constitution by the civil wars, he died first and laid down his life while his country was sick, yet still free.”
— Comparison Of Lucullus With Cimon
“For it is not fitting to compare the chambers in Naples and the sea-girt vistas which Lucullus built up from barbarian spoils to the Acropolis's south wall, whose completion was funded by money Cimon had brought home; nor to set beside Cimon's table that of Lucullus”
— Comparison Of Lucullus With Cimon
“Now if the greatest achievement of a leader is to produce ready obedience through goodwill, then Lucullus was held in contempt by his soldiers, while Cimon was admired by his allies: from the one men revolted, while to the other men transferred their allegiance.”
— Comparison Of Lucullus With Cimon
“Yet Lucullus went far beyond in the war — the first to cross the Taurus with a Roman army, and to cross the Tigris, and, in full view of the kings themselves, to take and burn the royal seats of Asia: Tigranocerta, Cabira, Sinope, and Nisibis,”
— Comparison Of Lucullus With Cimon
“So that, taking everything into account, the judgment is difficult to render, since the divine power too seems to have been favorable to both alike, forewarning the one what he must accomplish and the other what he must guard against, so that the vote of the gods too stands in favor of both, as men good and divine in nature.”
— Comparison Of Lucullus With Cimon
It is Plutarch's closing synkrisis appended to the paired Life of Lucullus and Life of Cimon, weighing the Roman and Athenian generals against each other on manner of death, use of wealth, youth and old age, generalship, relations with soldiers and allies, and the scale of the enemies each defeated. It does not narrate new events but judges the lives already told.
Both were celebrated generals who won major victories against Persian or Persian-descended power in Asia, both used great wealth generated by their campaigns, and both later suffered a collapse of political support at home despite their military success, which gives Plutarch parallel material to compare.
He does not settle it cleanly. He credits Cimon with the more difficult moral and political achievements, including winning the loyalty of allies and defeating an enemy fleet and army on the same day, but concedes that Lucullus operated on a far larger scale against a stronger, undefeated opponent in Tigranes, and the essay ends by attributing favor to both men rather than ranking them.
He contrasts Cimon's household, which fed many people at small expense in a democratic and generous spirit, with Lucullus's, which spent great wealth on luxury for a few, calling it extravagant and satrapal. He explicitly refuses to compare Lucullus's pleasure palaces in Naples to the public works Cimon funded, such as completing the Acropolis's south wall.
He treats this as the decisive test of leadership: Lucullus was held in contempt by his own soldiers and was abandoned by them, while Cimon was admired by his allies, who transferred their loyalty and command to him rather than deserting.
He notes that Cimon, like Lucullus, was put on trial and eventually ostracized by his own citizens, so that his voice went unheard for a decade. Plutarch treats this as common ground between the two men rather than a mark against either, arguing that aristocratic natures rarely please the crowd even when they act in its interest.
Plutarch concludes that judgment is difficult because both men enjoyed a kind of divine favor, one forewarned of what he had to accomplish and the other of what he had to guard against, so that he declines to declare either the clear superior.
Aemilius Paulus · Agesilaus · Agis · Alcibiades · Alexander · Antony · Aratus · Aristides · Artaxerxes · Caesar · Caius Gracchus · Caius Marius