# 21. How it comes about that Hannibal, whose Procedure differed radically from Scipio’s, yet produced the same Effect in Italy as Scipio did in Spain

Some people, I fancy, would be astonished were they to notice how certain generals, in spite of their having adopted a contrary line of conduct, produced the same effects as those who behaved in the way we have just described. Hence it would seem that the causes of victory did not rest on the grounds alleged, but, on the contrary, that such methods bring you neither greater strength nor better luck, since glory and reputation can be gained by the opposite methods. Let me keep to the two men mentioned above, and try to make my meaning more clear. Scipio, we find, entered Spain and by his humane and kindly conduct at once made that country his friend, and won the respect and admiration of its people. We find, on the other hand, that Hannibal entered Italy and by totally different methods, i.e. by cruelty, violence, rapine and every sort of perfidy, produced there the same effect as Scipio had produced in Spain; for all the Italian cities revolted to him, and all its peoples became his followers.

If one asks how this came about, there would appear to be several reasons. First, men are fond of novelty; so much so that those who are prosperous desire it as much as those who are poor. For, as has been said before, and rightly, in prosperity men get fed up, and in adversity cast down. Now, this desire for novelty throws open the door to anyone in the neighbourhood who puts himself at the head of a new movement. If he be a foreigner, men run after him; and, if he be a local man, they crowd round him, boost him and push him forward; with the result that, whatever line he takes, he succeeds in making great headway in this locality. Besides which, men are moved in the main by two things; either by love or by fear. Hence it comes about that a person in authority may be either one who makes himself loved or one who makes himself feared. Indeed, a man who makes himself feared is usually better followed and better obeyed than is one who makes himself loved.

It matters then little to a general along which road he travels, provided he has virtuosity, and his virtue gives him standing with men. For when there is great efficiency as there was in Hannibal and Scipio, it counterbalances all the mistakes due to their having made themselves too much loved or too much feared. For from both of these two lines of conduct there may arise serious inconveniences, likely to bring about the downfall of a ruler; because he who is too anxious to gain affection, should there be any little departure from the straight path, may become despised: while the other, who is anxious to be feared, should there be any excess in his behaviour, may become odious. And to keep precisely on the middle path cannot be done, for it is alien to our nature. Hence it is necessary that any excesses in action should be compensated by exceeding efficiency, as they were in Hannibal and Scipio. None the less, though it was by behaving thus that they made their name, it is clear that in both cases their conduct did them harm.

How each of them came to make his name has already been explained. The harm done, so far as Scipio is concerned, was that in Spain his soldiers mutinied, and were joined by some of his allies. This was due entirely to their not being afraid of him; for men are so restless that should the least thing open the door to their ambition, they at once belie the love which their ruler may have evoked by his decency, as did the aforesaid soldiers and allies. Consequently Scipio, to remove this inconvenience, had to resort to some measure of that cruelty which he had thus far avoided. As to Hannibal, there is no particular instance of his cruelty or his faithlessness doing him harm. One can well imagine, however, that Naples and many other towns which remained loyal to the Roman people, did so through fear of him. It is certain, too, that his impious behaviour made him more odious to the Roman people than any other enemy which that republic ever had. For, whereas to Pyrrhus, when he and his army were in Italy, they revealed a plot to poison him, they never forgave Hannibal, even when his troops were disarmed and disbanded, until they had compassed his death. Owing to Hannibal’s reputation for impiety, faithlessness and cruelty, then, this inconvenience arose; but, on the other hand, he derived from it a very great advantage, of which all writers have spoken with admiration. For, though his army was composed of men from different races, there never arose any dissension either among the men themselves or between them and him. This can only have been due to the terror his person inspired, which was so great that, in conjunction with the reputation he acquired for efficiency, it kept his troops quiet and united.

I conclude, therefore, that it does not matter much in what way a general behaves, provided his efficiency be so great that it flavours the way in which he behaves, whether it be in this way or that. For, as we have said, in both there are defects and dangers unless they be corrected by outstanding virtue. Hence, if Hannibal and Scipio produced the same effect, the one by praiseworthy and the other by reprehensible methods, it will not be amiss, I think, for me to discuss two Roman citizens who acquired the same glory by different methods, both of which were praiseworthy.