# 19. Whether in controlling the Masses Consideratenessa is more Necessary than Punishment

Though the Roman republic was distraught owing to the hostility between the nobles and the plebs, none the less, when war came, it commissioned Quintius and Appius Claudius to lead the armies forth. Appius, who was a brutal and harsh commander, was so badly obeyed by his troops that he had to quit his province as though he had been defeated. Quintius, who was of a kindly and humane disposition, was obeyed by his troops and returned victorious. It would seem better, therefore, in controlling a large number of men, to be humane rather than arrogant, compassionate rather than cruel. Cornelius Tacitus, however, – and many other writers agree with him – arrives at the opposite conclusion, which he expresses in these words: ‘In ruling the masses punishment is of more avail than considerateness.’

With a view to reconciling these two opinions I would point out that either the men you have to rule are in ordinary circumstances your associates, or they have always been your subjects. When they are your associates, you cannot in your dealings with them use penalties, nor yet that severity which Cornelius advocates. Wherefore, since in Rome the plebs had an equal share in the government with the nobility, neither could, on becoming the ruler for the time being, treat the other brutally and harshly. Very often, too, one sees that Roman generals succeeded better when they made their armies love them and treated them with consideration than did those who made themselves excessively feared, unless such behaviour was accompanied by outstanding virtue, as it was in the case of Manlius Torquatus. On the other hand, in governing one’s subjects, which is what Cornelius has in mind, lest they should become insolent and trample on you should you be too easy with them, it is better to rely on punishment rather than on considerateness. But this also should be used with moderation, so as to avoid cause for hatred; for no ruler benefits by making himself odious. To avoid this he should leave his subjects’ property alone; for, except as a cover for pillage, no prince is keen on shedding blood unless he be driven to it, and need for this seldom arises. But in connection with pillage bloodshed is always happening, nor is either the occasion or the desire to shed it ever lacking, as in another treatise discussing this topic has been shown at length.65 More praise is due, then, to Quintius than to Appius, and Cornelius’s view, under the conditions he supposes but not in those observed in the case of Appius, deserves approbation.

And while we are on this topic of punishment and considerateness it will not be irrelevant, I think, to cite a case in which an act of common decency availed more with the Falisci than did the use of arms.