This dissertation is a study of Plutarch's portrayal of military leadership in his Parallel Lives. I investigate Plutarch's use of extended military narrative to provide examples of good generalship for his readers, his conception of the importance and dangers of a military education, his attitude toward the moral use of deception in warfare, and the importance of synkrisis to the reader's final assessment of a general's military ability. I conclude with a case study of the Pyrrhus-Marius, in which I examine how Plutarch uses military narrative throughout the pair to compare the generalship of the two men. I demonstrate that Plutarch's conception of generalship in the Parallel Lives is nuanced, consistent, and often significant to the interpretation of a pair. Plutarch constructs his military narratives in such a way as to identify specific acts of generalship through which the military leaders among his readership could evaluate and improve their own generalship. Plutarch's treatment of the morality of generalship is consistent with his views on education and character; while he accepts the necessity and appreciates the effectiveness of military deception, he also recognizes its limitations and holds up for criticism those generals who do not use it appropriately. I also examine the importance of the formal synkrisis at the end of each pair of Lives to the structural integrity of the Plutarchan book and the evaluation of military leadership in each pair. These concluding synkriseis demonstrate that Plutarch had a consistent set of criteria for evaluating the generalship of his subjects, and encourage the reader to make similar judgments on military ability themselves. This process of evaluation and comparison of military leadership is particularly important to my reading of the Pyrrhus-Marius, as comparing the military careers of its subjects allows for a more complete reading of the pair than is otherwise possible.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka om teorin för ”Hearts and Minds” kan nå framgång med militär vilseledning. De teorier som finns sedan tidigare berör inte hur teorierna om att vinna befolkningens stöd skall gå till när militär vilseledning och upprorsbekämpning används. För att undersöka om militär vilseledning kan användas framgångsrikt inom arbetet att vinna ”Hearts and Minds” blir teorier för militär vilseledning och teorier för upprorsbekämpning beskrivna. Undersökningen analyserar den genomförda vilseledning som finns inom konflikterna på Nordirland, Algeriet 1954-1962 och Malaysia 1948-1960 för att belysa de fall av vilseledning som funnits inom upprorsbekämpningen i konflikterna. Slutsatserna av uppsatsen visar att vilseledning sannolikt inte hjälper arbetet med ”Hearts and Minds” på ett framgångsrikt sätt. Dock kan vilseledning skapa förutsättningar för ”Hearts and Minds”-operationer om det går att säkerställa att effekten av vilseledningen är isolerad till rebellerna och inte befolkningen. / The purpose of this essay is to explore whether or not military deception can aid the work with “Hearts and Minds”. The theory that already exist do not deal with the incorporation of how the work with “Hearts and Minds” should be done with regards to military deception. Theorys for counterinsurgency and military deception are described in order to explore whether deception could be used usefully within a “Hearts and Minds”-operation. The study analyzes the executed deception found in the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Algeria and Malaysia, 1954-1962 1948-1960, to show the cases of military deception within the insurrectionperformed by the counterinsurgent. The conclusions of the thesis shows that deception is unlikely to help work on "Hearts and Minds" in a successful manner. However, deception may create conditions for "Hearts and Minds" operations if it is possible to ensure that the effect of deception is isolated to the rebels and not to the people.