# CHAPTER 45 — Whether It Is a Better Policy in Battles to Sustain the Enemy’s Attack and Then to Counter-attack After Doing So; or to Assault Him Violently from the First

Decius and Fabius * were Roman consuls with two armies facing the armies of the Samnites and the Etruscans, and since they happened to be engaged in a skirmish and a battle at the same time, it is to be noted which of two different methods of proceeding followed by these two consuls in this action was best. Decius, with all possible impact and effort, attacked the enemy; Fabius only sustained the enemy attack, judging a slow attack to be more useful and saving his onslaught for last, when the enemy would have lost their initial fervour for combat and, as we say, their intensity. It is evident from the outcome of the affair that Fabius’ plan had greater success than that of Decius: the latter became worn out in his first onslaughts, so that when he saw that more of his troops were turning back than standing fast, he sacrificed himself for the Roman legions, in imitation of his father, to acquire the glory in death he was unable to achieve with victory. When Fabius learned of this, to acquire no less honour in life than his colleague had won in death, he thrust forward all those forces he had reserved for such a necessity; whence, he brought home a most happy victory. Thus, it is evident that Fabius’ method of proceeding is more secure and imitable.