the silliest of the Greeks, who are fond of exalting the reputation,
even of the Parthians, at the expense of the Roman name, the danger
was that the Roman people would not have had resolution to bear up
against the splendour of Alexander's name, who, however, in my
opinion, was not known to them even by common fame; and while, in
Athens, a state reduced to weakness by the Macedonian arms, which at
the very time saw the ruins of Thebes smoking in its neighbourhood,
men had spirit enough to declaim with freedom against him, as is
manifest from the copies of their speeches, which have been preserved;
[we are to be told] that out of such a number of Roman chiefs, no one
would have freely uttered his sentiments. How great soever our idea of
this man's greatness may be, still it is the greatness of an
individual, constituted by the successes of a little more than ten
years; and those who give it pre-eminence on account that the Roman
people have been defeated, though not in any entire war, yet in
several battles, whereas Alexander was never once unsuccessful in a
single fight, do not consider that they are comparing the actions of
one man, and that a young man, with the exploits of a nation waging
wars now eight hundred years. Can we wonder if, when on the one side
more ages are numbered than years on the other, fortune varied more in
so long a lapse of time than in the short term of thirteen years?
[Footnote: The duration of Alexander's military career.] But why not
compare the success of one general with that of another? How many
Roman commanders might I name who never lost a battle? In the annals
of the magistrates, and the records, we may run over whole pages of
consuls and dictators, with whose bravery, and successes also, the
Roman people never once had reason to be dissatisfied. And what
renders them more deserving of admiration than Alexander, or any king,
is, that some of these acted in the office of dictator, which lasted
only ten, or it might be twenty days, none, in a charge of longer