Rhetorical Analysis of Alexander the Great's Speech

Introduction

Alexander the Great was the son of King Philip II of Macedon and Olympias, the daughter of King Neoptolemus I of Epirus. Alexander is considered by many to be the greatest military leader in all of history. His father, Philip II, had unified most of the city-states in Greece, and Alexander continued this unification by using his military might to encompass Thrace, Thebes, Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Egypt, and northern India (Gill). He founded approximately 70 cities during his short period of empire creation (Gill). He was intent on spreading Greek culture throughout the region, but he also made an effort to be inclusive — he adapted to local customs and married local women. Sometimes his troops responded negatively to Alexander's willingness to adopt those customs, and they also questioned the ever-expanding nature of his mission. In 330 B.C., when Alexander's men learned they would not be returning home after the sacking of Persepolis, they threatened to mutiny (Gill). In 324 B.C., Alexander was faced with another mutiny and actually executed its leaders (Gill).

In 326 B.C., by the Hydaspes River in India, Alexander was faced with troops who were reluctant to follow him further. He called his men together and asked them to decide collectively whether to proceed or turn back. Alexander gave this speech as a way to convince his men to move forward into India rather than abandoning their efforts and returning home. He pointed out that their efforts to that point had been successful, asked them to consider whether he had been a good leader, and then challenged them to explain their reluctance to advance. His main claims focused on their history of success, the low likelihood of active resistance in the lands ahead, Greece's imminent global dominance, and the danger of leaving warlike peoples unconquered. The intended audience was the group of soldiers following him, and his goal was to persuade them to continue rather than return to Greece.

The argument Alexander chose was highly persuasive for his intended audience. One of its greatest strengths was his highlighting of past accomplishments as a means of quelling fears about future failure. He also employed a grand, sweeping vision — taking over all of Asia — and contrasted it with the comparatively modest option of staying home to defend the homeland. However, the argument was not without weaknesses. In some passages Alexander speaks of being welcomed by the peoples of distant lands, while in others he discusses forcing nations into submission, which raises questions about which characterization is accurate. Taken as a whole, the argument was persuasive, a fact confirmed not only by the text itself but by the historical record: it did inspire his men to continue into Asia.

Audience

This speech was captured by Arrian and is found in The Campaigns of Alexander the Great. The speech was directed at the men under Alexander's command as he attempted to lead them deeper into Asia, and this audience is apparent from the subject matter. Alexander opens the speech by explaining why he has gathered his men, and it is in this opening that the reader becomes aware of both his intended audience and his motivation for speaking. He chose that particular audience because there were indications that his men might refuse to follow him into Asia; he therefore had to address their concerns in order to retain their support.

From the text of the speech, there is no indication of a secondary intended audience. However, Alexander must have been aware that his speeches were being chronicled, which suggests that the people of Greece at home may have constituted a secondary audience. When one examines how the speech justifies the continuing absence of his men from Greece, and considers that the speech would likely have reached Greece before the end of the campaign, it appears he may have intended it partly as positive propaganda for those at home. Furthermore, it is possible that the peoples he was approaching might receive some account of the speech. Highlighting his army's prior successes would make his men seem more formidable, as would his stated determination to conquer Asia. The text offers no indication that anyone was specifically excluded from the speech's audience. Like a modern politician, Alexander seems to have crafted his remarks to resonate with any potential listener.

Logos

The logos of a speech refers to its logical arguments and the degree to which its claims are supported by fact (Dlugan). In many ways, logos comes down to the physical structure of the speech. Classical rhetoric identifies logos as one of the three primary modes of persuasion, alongside ethos and pathos. Alexander begins by telling his audience why he has gathered them. He then reviews the accomplishments he and his men have achieved to that date and, drawing on those accomplishments, asks them to consider why they would hesitate to move forward. He moves on to define manliness in terms that coincide with the kind of person who would press ahead in a military campaign. Next, he discusses the consequences of failing to conquer the lands he intends to claim. Finally, he concludes by reminding his men that he is not asking them to do anything he, as their leader, has not always been willing to do alongside them, and he promises to make those who stay the envy of those who return home.

There are two real shifts in the reasoning used in the speech. It begins with an appeal to their prior success, grounded in their identity as a nearly undefeatable army. Alexander then shifts to fear as a tactic, suggesting dangerous consequences if they fail to move forward — which appears to contradict the premise of an undefeatable army. He then moves to an empathetic posture, stating that he understands their hardships because he has endured the same ones alongside them, and from that empathy he transitions once more into the assertion that they are unstoppable.

The overall structure of the argument is sound. He opens by acknowledging that many of his men disagree with him, which is essential when the goal is persuasion. He emphasizes their collective strength as an army while also crediting his own leadership in building that strength. He concludes by making clear that he will not prevent men from returning home — but only after establishing that, in his view, only cowards would do so.

There are three distinct types of arguments, and Alexander employs all three. Arguments about causes rely on shared beliefs about what produces what; evaluative arguments measure an idea against predetermined criteria or outcomes; and proposals for action must first convince the audience that a problem exists and make them want to act, often by framing the situation in ethical terms ("Writing Tip #21"). Alexander identifies his men as the cause of their territorial gains: "through your courage and endurance you have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia, and Egypt; the Greek part of Libya is now yours, together with much of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia; Persia and Media with all the territories either formerly controlled by them or not are in your hands; you have made yourselves masters of the lands beyond the Caspian Gates" (Arrian). He evaluates the probability of future success and the possible consequences of halting: "But if you turn back now, there will remain unconquered many warlike peoples between the Hyphasis and the Eastern Ocean, and many more to the northward and the Hyrcanian Sea, with the Scythians, too, not far away; so that if we withdraw now there is a danger that the territory which we do not yet securely hold may be stirred to revolt by some nation or other we have not yet forced into submission. Should that happen, all that we have done and suffered will have proved fruitless, or we shall be faced with the task of doing it over again from the beginning" (Arrian). Finally, he proposes a course of action and argues it is the only appropriate path: "The conquered territory belongs to you; from your ranks the governors of it are chosen; already the greater part of its treasure passes into your hands, and when all Asia is overrun, then indeed I will go further than the mere satisfaction of our ambitions: the utmost hopes of riches or power which each one of you cherishes will be far surpassed, and whoever wishes to return home will be allowed to go, either with me or without me. I will make those who stay the envy of those who return" (Arrian).

To bolster his argument, Alexander draws on personal experience and verifiable facts rather than statistics or historical anecdotes. He focuses on what they have already accomplished and speculates carefully about what may occur in the future. He also makes grandiose promises about the rewards of success, promises grounded in the tangible riches that awaited an army advancing through Asia. It is ultimately the combination of glory and material gain that Alexander relies upon most. While he makes clear that every man is free to choose whether to stay or go home, he structures the argument so that only one option appears rational.

Conclusion

History reveals that Alexander's argument was persuasive to his men, though he would encounter additional difficulties with troops wanting to return home as the campaign continued. He succeeded in persuading them primarily through an emotional appeal that centered on their pride. Moreover, while the failure to address counter-arguments might appear to be a weakness of the speech, in this context it functioned as a strength: it demonstrated that Alexander dismissed the notion that returning home could compare, in any way, with pressing forward. Given that he was speaking to an army of fighting men whose identity was bound up in conquest and glory, the argument proved highly persuasive for its audience.