Excerpt from Imaginative Writing:
Proposals for action “must first convince the audience that a problem exists and make the target audience want action. Often , these types of arguments consider ethical scenarios: if the scenario is incorrect, then the remedy must make it right” (“Writing Tip #21). Alexander pinpoints his men as the cause of being able to declare so many towns; “through your courage and endurance you could have gained possession of Ionia, the Hellespont, both equally Phrygias, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Phoenicia, and Egypt; the Ancient greek part of Libya is now your own, together with a lot of Arabia, lowland Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylon, and Susia; Persia and Media with all the territories either previously controlled by them or perhaps not happen to be in your hands; you have made yourselves masters of the lands past the Caspian Gates” (Arrian). He examines the possibility of achievement in future interests, and also the likely consequences of failing to continue; “But in case you turn back at this point, there will remain unconquered a large number of warlike individuals between the Hyphasis and the Far eastern Ocean, and more to the northward and the Hyrcanian Sea, together with the Scythians, also, not far away; so that if we withdraw now there is a risk that the terrain which we do not yet securely hold might be stirred to revolt by simply some region or various other we have not as yet forced in to submission. Will need to that happen, all that we now have done and suffered may have proved fruitless or we shall be faced with the task to do it over again from the beginning” (Arrian). Finally, he suggests future action moving more into Asia, and attempts to prove that entering into Asia is a only suitable solution; “The conquered area belongs to you; from your positions the governors of it happen to be chosen; previously the greater part of its prize passes into the hands, and once all Asia is overrun, then without a doubt I will go further than the mere fulfillment of our goals: the utmost desires of souple or electricity which each of you cherishes will be significantly surpassed, and whoever desires to return house will be permitted to go, possibly with me or without me. I will make those who stay the jealousy of those who also return” (Arrian).
To reinforce his debate, Alexander uses personal encounter and details. He would not rely upon figures or notify stories using their past. Rather, he focuses on what they include accomplished up to this point. This individual discusses the potential of things that may occur in the future. Moreover, this individual makes special promises with what the possibility of success means, although those guarantees are supported by the wealth that each guy would likely come across if we were holding to move forward into Asia. It is really the combination of fame and wealth that Alexander relies upon the most to influence his audience. When he explicitly makes it obvious that the people in his target audience are free to select whether to be or to go home, he has structured the argument in a manner that makes it appear that there is only 1 real alternative. The men with him are soldiers, quite a few are probably mercenaries, and it may be unrealistic to assume that that they had any genuine options if perhaps they came back home. Furthermore, given Alexander’s violent respond to later endeavors to turn to Greece, this certainly seems plausible that, even with his assurances, the men would dread the consequences in the event that they rejected to continue into Asia.
Ethos refers to “an charm based on the smoothness of the speaker. An ethos-driven document depends on the reputation of the author” (“The Fine art of Rhetoric”). In this speech, Alexander does not really have to establish his extrinsic ethos. Up to this point, he has led unichip on a extremely successful mission of conquering the then-known world. Nevertheless , Alexander begins his conversation by reminding his males of the actual have accomplished, and the fact that he \leads them in his accomplishments. Additionally, he reminds them that he will not be some type of hands-off leader, yet that he has suffered precisely the same degree of hardship and risk that this individual has asked them to encounter in the past and that he is asking them to confront in the future. His most important tip of how he has led them comes near the end of his conversation:
I could not need blamed you for being the first to lose cardiovascular if I, the commander, hadn’t shared inside your exhausting marches and your risky campaigns; it might have been all-natural enough in case you had done all the work basically for others to reap the reward. But it is not so. You and I actually, gentlemen, include shared the labour and shared the risk, and the returns are for us all. The conquered place belongs to you; from your rates the governors of it are chosen; currently the greater part of its prize passes into the hands, and when all Asia is overrun, then without a doubt I will get further than the mere pleasure of our aspirations: the utmost hopes of wealth or electric power which each of you treasures will be far surpassed, and whoever desires to return residence will be permitted to go, either with me or perhaps without me personally (Arrian).
With this speech, Alexander is reminding these people that he could be not only a good military leader, but that he offers historically been very fair in his treatment of the men. They enjoy the benefit from your lands that they conquer and are not asked to deal with simply to advantage Alexander. His whole debate seems organised at reminding the men from the potential for their own personal gain if they continue forwards into Asia.
Pathos refers to “an appeal to emotion” (“Logos, Ethos, and Pathos”). It focuses on how a author uses his presentation to generate feelings in the audience. In several ways, though Alexander uses a logical reasoning structure and creates his credibility as a head, his talk is based upon pathos. He appeals to his men as great warriors and then determines the potential outcomes of them continuous to follow him, as well as the potential consequences if they tend to stop pursuing him and never proceed into Asia. He begins with a direct charm to their satisfaction, by showcasing what they have accomplished to that period. He clashes that with how little they would have got accomplished if they had never left Greece, and then defines manliness in terms of all those accomplishments. This individual uses dread to suggest the conceivable consequences, not only for them nevertheless for the people who’ve been left behind, in the event that they fail to move forward and continue to conquer Asia. Finally, he interests both avarice and pleasure by promising untold prosperity and probability if they continue with him, although making sure that just about every man realizes that he has a choice about whether to proceed or perhaps return residence. The obvious dichotomy in his presentation is that, though he will not explicitly state so , only cowards might return house.
Counter-Arguments and Qualifiers
One of many notable elements in the presentation is that Alexander fails to address any counter-arguments. He does not acknowledge the actual benefits of coming back again home. Although he truly does acknowledge the men have experienced hardship, he does not recognize that this kind of hardship could possibly be sufficient determination to make all of them want to come back to Greece. He does not recognize the risk that they may find an armed service that they are struggling to defeat. He does not mention the mental reasons that men may want to return residence. On the contrary, his argument is notable for its complete insufficient acknowledging counter-arguments. This may be as they is not really attempting to persuade all of his men to remain with him, but only to convince enough of him to stay that he can still successfully move into Asia.
History reveals that Alexander’s argument was persuasive to his guys, though he would encounter additional problems with males wanting to come back home throughout his quest. He was capable of being persuasive as a result of his emotional appeal towards the men, which usually focused on their very own pride. Moreover, while declining to address counter-arguments may seem just like a weakness, from this context that worked like a strength because it revealed that Alexander was dismissing the notion that returning home could assess, in any way, with continuing. Considering the fact that he was speaking to an army of fighting men, the debate was extremely persuasive for his target audience.
Arrian. “Speech of Alexander the Great’ from the Advertisments of Alexander. Ancient Record
Sourcebook. N. p., September 2000. Net. 21 Scar. 2012.
“The Art of Rhetoric: Understanding how to use the 3 Main Rhetorical Styles. ” Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. D. p. Unk. Web. 21 years old Mar. 2012.
Dlugan, Toby. (2010). “Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Key elements of Speaking in public. ” Six Minutes.
N. p. World wide web. 21 Mar. 2012.
Gill, N. S. (2012). “Alexander the Great Examine