# 26. Scorn and Abuse arouse Hatred against those who indulge in them without bringing them any Advantage

I hold it to be a sign of great prudence in men to refrain alike from threats and from the use of insulting language, for neither of these things deprives the enemy of his power, but the first puts him more on his guard, while the other intensifies his hatred of you and makes him more industrious in devising means to harm you. This is seen in the case of the Veientes, whom we were discussing in the previous chapter. Besides the injury done by the war, they abused the Romans by word of mouth, a thing which every sensible general should prevent his soldiers from doing, for such language does but exasperate the enemy and move him to vengeance, nor, as has been said, does it in any way interfere with his attack: so that in fact they are weapons which turn against you.

Of this a notable instance occurred in Asia. When Cobades, the Persian commander, had been besieging Amida for a considerable time, he grew weary of the tiresome business and decided to withdraw. While he was striking camp the townsmen, exhilarated by their victory, all climbed on the walls and used every sort of abuse, calumniating and accusing and upbraiding the enemy for his cowardice and poltroonery. This so annoyed Cobades that he changed his mind, and, indignant at the injustice, returned to the siege and in a few days had taken and sacked the city.

The same thing happened to the Veientes, who, as I have said, were not content to make war on the Romans, but also spoke of them contemptuously, going up to the stockade surrounding their camp and shouting abuse at them. This annoyed the troops much more than the fighting did; so that, whereas they had at first fought unwillingly, they now pressed the consuls to join battle, with the result that the Veientes, like those mentioned above, were punished for their contumacy as they deserved. Good army commanders and good republican rulers should take all appropriate measures to prevent the use of abusive language and taunts, whether in the city or in their army, and whether used one towards another or towards the enemy. For, if used towards the enemy, there ensue the aforesaid inconveniences, and still worse inconveniences if used one towards the other, unless precautions be taken, as they always have been by prudent men.

When the Roman legions, left in Capua, conspired against the Capuans, as will be narrated in due course, and in connection with this conspiracy a mutiny arose, subsequently quelled by Valerius Corvinus, among other points in the convention he drew up, it prescribed the severest penalties on those who should reproach any of the troops for having taken part in the mutiny.

Tiberius Gracchus, who, during the war with Hannibal, had been put in command of a certain number of slaves, whom, owing to the shortage of men, the Romans had armed, made a special point of the capital punishment he prescribed for anyone who should reproach any slave with his servitude.

We see, then, how harmful the Romans thought it to calumniate others or to reproach them for a shameful deed, as has been said, for than this there is nothing that inflames the mind more, or arouses greater indignation, whether the taunt be true or be said in jest, ‘For smart sayings, when they border on the truth, leave a bitter taste behind them.’