Compared to contemporary American politicians, the leaders of the Greek and Roman eras chronicled in Plutarch's "Lives" were indeed great men -- at least Caesar and Antony were. If we are to believe Plutarch, who convinces you of his fairness and honesty by showing their faults and virtues with rough equivalence, Caesar was unquestionably the greater man.
But in spite of several fatal character flaws, Antony stood head and shoulders over today's pols and military leaders by his brilliance and basic humanity. Whereas both men killed huge quantities of human beings (Caesar massacred over a million by Plutarch's count), they each paradoxically displayed a common solidarity with their fellow men at a level unheard of among the world leaders who dominate today's headlines. They both shared their soldiers' hardships and dangers, often leading them into battle personally. Each was generous to a fault, although it served as their main means of gathering followers other than their military prowess.
But Caesar appears to have been a one-of-a-kind military and political genius, while Antony, as talented and gifted as he was in a similar way, utterly lacked Caesar's strength of character. This was most notably underlined by the final tragic outcome of his defeat at the hands of Rome and his subsequent suicide after he rashly fell under the irresistible charms of Cleopatra. But it had been amply demonstrated since his youth, when he was known mainly for his beauty, drinking, and moral dissipation (Plutarch 748).
When he went to Greece he fell under the influence of a demagogue, who did little to cure his "ostentations [and] vaunting temper, full of empty flourishes and unsteady efforts for glory" (ibid.). Basically lazy and impatient, after attaining military and political power he did not help his fortunes by his wild parties and dalliances with the wives of friends. And while his funeral oration upon the assassination of C
...