The objective of our current assignment is to properly analyze the pre-battle speech that Alexander made before his final push for the re-conquest of Greek states. I am not actively concerned with the validity or accuracy of these speech translations, primarily because they consist of multifaceted translations by Greco-Roman historians.

I suppose it is quite an achievement to be known throughout history as “President, Pope, Ambassador, King, or Queen” however, there have been hundreds of people with those ranks. How often do you see someone that has the word “Great” following his or her name? Well Alexander the Great was truly deserving of such a title. From an early age Alexander was a perfect son to his father. He was a bright young man eager to learn. He sought out Aristotle as a mentor until he was sixteen years old. At this time, his father was assassinated and so Alexander took over the empire. He launched his father’s plans for expansion, and by the time he was thirty, he ruled one of the largest empires of the ancient world, spanning from Greece to Egypt. He was undefeated in battle and considered one of the most successful military leaders in history. Alexander’s pre-battle speech during his attempt to recapture former Greek cities had a lasting and inspirational effect on his army. His skills in giving speeches, partially based on his learnings from Aristotle, allows him too effectively and easily motivate his troops during difficult times.

Alexander’s speech, simply in the context in which it exists, was considered both typical and unique. At the time, it was an integral part of a battle plan for a captain, general, or anyone with authority to motivate and convince their people that they are fighting for something worthwhile. Without motivation, armies would crumble and disband, regardless of how ruthless the ruler. However, in Alexander’s case, his motivational speech did not simply consist of the generic words and reasons that others have given in the past. Alexander himself fought with his army. Perhaps he wasn’t the first one to rush into a crowd of armed men, however he was right there, on the battlefield, commanding and tending to his troops. (quote talks about how he fought alongside his men, walked miles on end with them, and even struggled through sickness with them) + explanation) Even if the troops did not wholeheartedly believe in their reasons for fighting, they were oftentimes inspired by his involvement and dedication.

Throughout his speech, Alexander tries to address the issues of ownership throughout his followers. He insinuates that there are not enough noblemen, leaders, or high ranking officials to control all of the lands that they have conquered. It is almost a necessity for him to split up the massive empire to those who are slaving away in the war itself. (Quote 2, he keeps saying “our” + explanation) Through this, he is able to implement the use of logos effectively. It is only natural for others to think something along the lines of “well I suppose he is right. If I continue to serve loyally perhaps I could rule or watch over a town or province.” This was one of the most effective ways that kept his army fighting. He was taught by Aristotle that all men had greed. By playing on this greed, he was able to give a speech that did not demand anything of his men. However one that simply made the men believe that fighting was the most beneficial course of action. After all, one of the most effective strategies is to make someone think that they are came to a conclusion through their own free will.

Oftentimes people come across the misconception that if all of the rhetoric appeals are not included, then it weakens a speech. However in Alexander’s case the lack of pathos actually makes the speech stronger. His speech is solely meant to play on the army’s emotions. It is meant to make them jealous, greedy, and worry about the future. By inserting statistics, which most likely weren’t even available circa 350 B.C., he would disrupt the flow of the speech, making it less effective. After all, if anyone has experienced, as we would now call it, a “hype” speech, then you would know that the “hype” that took so long to build up can easily be killed if there was any interruptions.

It is also important to analyze how this speech is given. It, like most other inspirational war speeches, is based on a deliberative occasion. The synopsis of the speech is that “we should, for there are no reasons to insist otherwise, push on with this battle and continue to reconquer our lost Greek states.” He uses ethos efficiently here, claiming that “These natives either surrender without a blow or are caught on the run–or leave their country undefended for your taking; and when we take it, we make a present of it to those who have joined us of their own free will and fight on our side.” This plays on much of his army’s emotions. Of course they want to win, nobody would want to fight on a losing side. Additionally, through his descriptions of the opposition, he makes his army believe that they are fighting against submissive colonies that would never dare to fight back. This ensues self-confidence and trust throughout his army. Also, by saying that “These natives surrender without a blow” makes it seem as though his men may never even see battle. He tells them that they are so powerful, that they simply take what they want. That no matter who they oppose, the sheer power and size of their army is enough to make even the strongest of nations crumble. Now, who wouldn’t want to be fighting for a man and army like that?

Ultimately Alexander’s speech does what he intended. He inspires his army to continue fighting for a common cause and makes truly share in his beliefs. Some credit his outstanding speaking skills to his learnings with Aristotle. However, one can see that years later, he is still an effective speaker. His use of rhetoric is flawless. He implemented Kairos perfectly. This speech was given when his followers and army had grown tired. They had been fighting for years and could not take much more. He is able to, however, convince them that they will absolutely benefit, and gain land and riches. However, if they were to stop now, then there would still be others off to the west who could grow stronger and eventually pose a threat to them. By playing off of their greed and worry, he was able to complete his conquest of the Greek states. He even ended the speech with a final challenge to those who wished to leave. “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.” Well I sure would stay. How about you?

Note* some quotes were left out simply because there were issues with being able to copy and paste from the website that the speech was found. I try to give a general idea of what the quote would be about and will implement it into the claims made around that area of each paragraph.

For my unit one civic engagement speech, I selected to interview my dad. Throughout the class periods during which I viewed past speeches, I noticed one recurring issue in the presentations. This was that students kept trying to find the civic engagement in the people that they interviewed. (I will not mention artifacts simply because that is not the path I chose) Because of this, I decided to select someone who I knew to be civically engaged. I also decided to select someone whose definition of civic engagement that I was already familiar with. I realized that the perfect person to interview would be my dad. I knew he had always been civically involved, however I did not always comprehend the things he did and the specifics of what it took to be such an active member of groups, societies, and communities. However, he was not always handed these opportunities, it took a great deal of effort, perseverance, and luck for him to become the person he is.

Looking back on the assignment itself, I found that Kairos plays a very important role in the rhetorical situation of my selection. As stated previously, I realized that to effectively fulfill the requirements of this speech, I have to convince my audience that I understand my interviewee and his knowledge, or lack thereof of civic engagement. Additionally, I have found that Kairos was and still is an integral aspect of my father’s life and the experiences that shaped who he is today. See I believe in Aristotle’s notion of the Tabula Rasa, or “Blank Slate” theory. I vote in favor of the nurture side of “nature vs nurture” and that a person’s experiences can mold who they become. This plays a large part in my interviewee’s life because as a poor boy who came to America with the clothes on his back and money in his pocket, I believe he has taken advantage of all the opportunities life offered and that, in turn, paid off. He “struck while the iron was hot” in many different ways. But sadly I am approaching my max word count. Guess you’ll just have to learn about my dad through my speech!