Plutarch's short closing synkrisis weighs the Roman exile-general Sertorius against the Macedonian secretary-turned-general Eumenes, judging character and manner of death rather than military success.
This chapter is the paired comparison (synkrisis) that Plutarch appends to his linked biographies of Sertorius and Eumenes, both men who rose to command foreign armies as exiles and outsiders. Plutarch opens by naming what the two share: neither was a native ruler of the peoples he led, yet each commanded warlike, formidable armies far from home. He then works through the differences point by point -- Sertorius commanded Iberians and Lusitanians by the consent of his allies and the prestige of his Roman senatorial rank, while Eumenes, a mere secretary by origin and a Greek from the Chersonese ruling over proud Macedonians, had to win the first place among rivals purely through his own deeds.
The comparison unfolds as a series of balanced antitheses: Sertorius faced open opposition from few and treachery from fewer, while Eumenes contended constantly against open enemies and secret plots alike, so that victory itself, for Eumenes, generated new envy and danger rather than ending it. Plutarch distinguishes the two temperaments sharply -- Eumenes as a man fond of war and contention who could have retired safely but kept fighting, Sertorius as a man who wanted only a quiet, private safety but was dragged into war by enemies who would not let him live in peace. From this Plutarch draws a moral distinction between being merely 'fond of war,' who prefers gain to safety, and being a true 'man of war,' who uses war to secure safety. The chapter closes on the manner of each man's death: Sertorius, betrayed and murdered by his own allies, died without expecting it and is credited with the fair-mindedness of trusting his friends; Eumenes, unable to escape capture, begged for his life and thereby handed his captors mastery not just of his body but of his soul.
The synkrisis form itself matters historically: Plutarch's Parallel Lives paired a Greek and a Roman biography and then closed with exactly this kind of short comparative judgment, using the two lives as test cases for a moral question -- here, what distinguishes honorable command from mere ambition, and what a good death looks like under betrayal versus capture. Because both Sertorius and Eumenes were leaders who never held legitimate hereditary authority over the men they commanded, the comparison also serves as Plutarch's meditation on legitimacy earned by reputation versus legitimacy earned by proven deeds, and on how a life ends as the final test of a life's character.
“This is what we have gathered as worthy of memory concerning Eumenes and Sertorius.”
— Comparison Of Sertorius With Eumenes
“And Sertorius advanced to command being admired for his senatorial rank and generalship, while Eumenes advanced to leadership though despised on account of his post as secretary.”
— Comparison Of Sertorius With Eumenes
“In their generalship, then, they were evenly matched and comparable; but in other respects Eumenes was fond of war and contentious, while Sertorius was inclined to quiet and gentleness.”
— Comparison Of Sertorius With Eumenes
“He is fond of war, then, who prefers gain to safety, but he is a man of war who by war acquires safety.”
— Comparison Of Sertorius With Eumenes
“And death did not disgrace the life of the one, suffering at the hands of allies what none of his enemies ever did to him; but the other, unable to flee before capture, yet wishing to live after capture, neither guarded his end well nor endured it, but by clinging and begging he made the enemy, who seemed to hold mastery only over his body, master of his soul as well.”
— Comparison Of Sertorius With Eumenes
It is the short comparative essay Plutarch appends after a pair of parallel biographies, usually one Greek and one Roman life, weighing the two men's characters and achievements against each other. This chapter is exactly that essay for the Lives of Sertorius and Eumenes, and it does not retell events so much as judge them.
Plutarch pairs them because both were exiles and foreigners who nonetheless commanded large, warlike native armies far from their own homelands -- Sertorius the Romans exiled among Iberians and Lusitanians, Eumenes the Greek secretary who rose to lead proud Macedonians. Their shared circumstance of outsider command is the basis for comparison even though their personalities differ sharply.
Plutarch leans toward Sertorius in the final assessment: Sertorius is credited with fair-mindedness for trusting his friends even though that trust got him killed, while Eumenes is faulted for begging his captors for his life, which Plutarch treats as surrendering mastery of his own soul, not just his body.
He is betrayed and killed by his own allies without ever suspecting it, so that, in Plutarch's words, he suffered at the hands of allies what none of his enemies ever did to him. Plutarch treats this as a mark of Sertorius's trusting character rather than a failure of judgment.
Eumenes is captured after trying and failing to flee, and rather than accepting his end, he clings to his captors and begs to be allowed to live. Plutarch judges this as the moment Eumenes lost control not merely of his body but of his soul.
Plutarch defines the man fond of war as one who prefers gain to safety and keeps fighting when he could safely retire -- this is Eumenes. The true man of war, by contrast, fights only to secure safety and would rather have peace -- this is Sertorius, who is dragged into war by enemies who will not leave him alone.
According to Plutarch, Antigonus would gladly have let Eumenes retire with a subordinate rank, but Eumenes kept contending for supremacy; Pompey's faction, on the other hand, would not let Sertorius live free of trouble even though he wanted only personal safety. So Eumenes ruled by choice and Sertorius ruled because war was forced on him.
No -- the comparison barely touches battlefield tactics and instead concentrates on character, the legitimacy of command, and above all the manner of each man's death as the ultimate test of his worth.
Aemilius Paulus · Agesilaus · Agis · Alcibiades · Alexander · Antony · Aratus · Aristides · Artaxerxes · Caesar · Caius Gracchus · Caius Marius