Plutarch's closing synkrisis weighs the Theban liberator Pelopidas against the Roman general Marcellus, judging character, victories, and reckless deaths side by side.
This short comparison closes the paired biographies of Pelopidas and Marcellus in Plutarch's Parallel Lives. Plutarch begins from what the two men share in temperament—both brave, hard-working, high-spirited, great-souled—before drawing his first real contrast: Marcellus sacked cities and slaughtered their inhabitants, while Pelopidas and Epaminondas, even in victory, killed no one and enslaved no city, a restraint Plutarch credits to the Thebans generally.
The comparison unfolds through military exploits set against each other. Marcellus's stand against the Celts, where he personally killed the enemy leader, is measured against Pelopidas's fatal rush at Alexander of Pherae. Plutarch weighs Leuctra and Tegyra against Marcellus's record versus Hannibal, noting that Roman historians differ on whether Marcellus ever truly defeated Hannibal at all. He credits Marcellus with restoring Roman morale after a string of disasters, and considers whether being merely hard-to-defeat (Marcellus) equals being altogether undefeated (Pelopidas), before turning to their sole individual triumphs—Syracuse for Marcellus, the march to the gates of Sparta for Pelopidas.
The essay's real weight falls on how each man died. Both were killed rashly and without necessity, Pelopidas consumed by battle-rage at the fall of the tyrant, Marcellus riding into an ambush like a scout rather than a five-time consul. Plutarch closes by contrasting what followed: Pelopidas was buried by the allies he died for, Marcellus by the enemies who killed him—and Plutarch judges the latter, strange as it sounds, the greater compliment, since an enemy's grief for a fallen virtue outweighs a friend's gratitude. This synkrisis form—setting two lives against each other in a formal closing comparison—is Plutarch's signature technique for turning biography into moral argument, and this piece is a compact, well-preserved example of the method at work.
“for both men were brave, hard-working, high-spirited, and great-souled—this alone would seem to make a difference: that Marcellus, in many cities that fell into his hands, carried out slaughters, whereas Epaminondas and Pelopidas, though they conquered, never killed anyone, nor enslaved any city.”
— Comparison Of Pelopidas With Marcellus
“Since, then, Pelopidas was never defeated in any battle he commanded, while Marcellus won the most victories of any Roman of his time, it might seem that the one who is hard to defeat is made equal to the one who is undefeated, by the sheer number of his successes.”
— Comparison Of Pelopidas With Marcellus
“it is best that a general survive while conquering, "but if he must die, let him end his life in virtue," as Euripides says.”
— Comparison Of Pelopidas With Marcellus
“But Marcellus, when no great necessity was pressing, nor any enthusiasm present of the sort that often drives reasoning out amid dangers, thrust himself thoughtlessly into peril and fell, not the fall of a general, but of some scout or spy,”
— Comparison Of Pelopidas With Marcellus
“After death, Pelopidas had for his burial those allies for whom he died, while Marcellus had his enemies, by whom he died. That former thing is enviable and blessed, but the latter is greater and better—hatred grieving admiration of virtue is a greater thing than goodwill returning gratitude.”
— Comparison Of Pelopidas With Marcellus
Pelopidas was a Theban general and statesman who helped liberate Thebes from Spartan-backed oligarchs and later died fighting the tyrant Alexander of Pherae. Marcellus was a five-time Roman consul best known for capturing Syracuse and for fighting Hannibal during the Second Punic War. Plutarch pairs them as examples of daring, energetic military leadership.
This is the format of Plutarch's Parallel Lives: he pairs a Greek and a Roman figure with similar careers or characters, narrates each life separately, then writes a formal comparison (synkrisis) like this one to draw out moral lessons from their similarities and differences.
Plutarch does not hand down a single flat verdict. He credits Pelopidas with moral restraint in victory and an unbroken record in battles he personally commanded, but credits Marcellus with achievements he earned entirely alone, without a co-commander, and with a death mourned even by his enemies—which Plutarch calls the greater honor.
Both died recklessly in minor engagements rather than major battles. Pelopidas was cut down rushing the tyrant Alexander of Pherae in a fit of battle-fury; Marcellus, despite holding five consulships and three triumphs, was killed in a small skirmish against the Carthaginians' Numidian and Spanish troops, a death Plutarch says befit a scout more than a general.
Plutarch reports the dispute directly: according to Polybius and his sources, Marcellus never defeated Hannibal even once, and Hannibal remained undefeated until Scipio. But Plutarch says he trusts Livy, Caesar, Nepos, and King Juba, who record real defeats and routs of Hannibal's forces at Marcellus's hands, even if none proved decisive.
In the closing lines, Plutarch argues that Marcellus being buried with honor by the very enemies who killed him is a greater tribute than Pelopidas being buried by the grateful allies he died defending, because an enemy's admiration for virtue is unforced, whereas a friend's gratitude is expected and self-interested.
A synkrisis is the short formal comparison Plutarch appends after a paired set of biographies, weighing the two subjects' virtues, achievements, and flaws against each other. This piece is one of the more concise and pointed examples in the collection.
Aemilius Paulus · Agesilaus · Agis · Alcibiades · Alexander · Antony · Aratus · Aristides · Artaxerxes · Caesar · Caius Gracchus · Caius Marius