# CHAPTER XIX —_Whether Indulgence or Severity be more necessary for

CHAPTER XIX.—_Whether Indulgence or Severity be more necessary for
controlling a Multitude._


The Roman Republic was distracted by the feuds of the nobles and
commons. Nevertheless, on war breaking out, Quintius and Appius
Claudius were sent forth in command of Roman armies. From his harshness
and severity to his soldiers, Appius was so ill obeyed by them, that
after sustaining what almost amounted to a defeat, he had to resign his
command. Quintius, on the contrary, by kindly and humane treatment,
kept his men obedient and returned victorious to Rome. From this it
might seem that to govern a large body of men, it is better to be
humane than haughty, and kindly rather than severe.

And yet Cornelius Tacitus, with whom many other authors are agreed,
pronounces a contrary opinion where he says, “_In governing a multitude
it avails more to punish than to be compliant._”[14] If it be asked how
these opposite views can be reconciled, I answer that you exercise
authority either over men used to regard you as their equal, or over
men who have always been subject to you. When those over whom you
exercise authority are your equals, you cannot trust wholly to
punishment or to that severity of which Tacitus speaks. And since in
Rome itself the commons had equal weight with the nobles, none
appointed their captain for a time only, could control them by using
harshness and severity. Accordingly we find that those Roman captains
who gained the love of their soldiers and were considerate of them,
often achieved greater results than those who made themselves feared by
them in an unusual degree, unless, like Manlius Torquatus, these last
were endowed with consummate valour. But he who has to govern subjects
such as those of whom Tacitus speaks, to prevent their growing insolent
and trampling upon him by reason of his too great easiness, must resort
to punishment rather than to compliance. Still, to escape hatred,
punishment should be moderate in degree, for to make himself hated is
never for the interest of any prince. And to escape hatred, a prince
has chiefly to guard against tampering with the property of any of his
subjects; for where nothing is to be gained by it, no prince will
desire to shed blood, unless, as seldom happens, constrained to do so
by necessity. But where advantage is to be gained thereby, blood will
always flow, and neither the desire to shed it, nor causes for shedding
it will ever be wanting, as I have fully shown when discussing this
subject in another treatise.

 [14] “In multitudine regenda plus poena quam obsequium valet.” But
 compare Annals, III. 55, “Obsequium inde in principem et æmulandi amoi
 validioi quam poena ex legibus et metus.”


Quintius therefore was more deserving of praise than Appius.
Nevertheless the opinion of Tacitus, duly restricted and not understood
as applying to a case like that of Appius, merits approval. But since I
have spoken of punishment and indulgence, it seems not out of place to
show how a single act of humanity availed more than arms with the
citizens of Falerii.