# CHAPTER XXII —_That the severity of Manlius Torquatus and the

Chapter XXII.—_That the severity of Manlius Torquatus and the
gentleness of Valerius Corvinus won for both the same Glory._


There lived in Rome, at the same time, two excellent captains, Manlius
Torquatus and Valerius Corvinus, equal in their triumphs and in their
renown, and in the valour which in obtaining these they had displayed
against the enemy; but who in the conduct of their armies and treatment
of their soldiers, followed very different methods. For Manlius, in his
command, resorted to every kind of severity, never sparing his men
fatigue, nor remitting punishment; while Valerius, on the contrary,
treated them with all kindness and consideration, and was easy and
familiar in his intercourse with them. So that while the one, to secure
the obedience of his soldiers, put his own son to death, the other
never dealt harshly with any man. Yet, for all this diversity in their
modes of acting, each had the same success against the enemy, and each
obtained the same advantages both for the republic and for himself. For
no soldier of theirs ever flinched in battle, or rose in mutiny against
them, or in any particular opposed their will; though the commands of
Manlius were of such severity that any order of excessive rigour came
to be spoken of as a _Manlian order_.

Here, then, we have to consider first of all why Manlius was obliged to
use such severity; next, why Valerius could behave so humanely;
thirdly, how it was that these opposite methods had the same results;
and lastly, which of the two methods it is better and more useful for
us to follow. Now, if we well examine the character of Manlius from the
moment when Titus Livius first begins to make mention of him, we shall
find him to have been endowed with a rare vigour both of mind and body,
dutiful in his behaviour to his father and to his country, and most
reverent to his superiors. All which we see in his slaying the Gaul, in
his defence of his father against the tribune, and in the words in
which, before going forth to fight the Gaul, he addressed the consul,
when he said, “_Although assured of victory, never will I without thy
bidding engage an enemy._” But when such a man as this attains to
command, he looks to find all others like himself; his dauntless spirit
prompts him to engage in daring enterprises, and to insist on their
being carried out. And this is certain, that where things hard to
execute are ordered to be done, the order must be enforced with
sternness, since, otherwise, it will be disobeyed.

And here be it noted that if you would be obeyed you must know how to
command, and that they alone have this knowledge who have measured
their power to enforce, with the willingness of others to yield
obedience; and who issue their orders when they find these conditions
combining, but, otherwise, abstain. Wherefore, a wise man was wont to
say that to hold a republic by force, there must be a proportion
between him who uses the force and him against whom it is used; and
that while this proportion obtains the force will operate; but that
when he who suffers is stronger than he who uses the force, we may
expect to see it brought to an end at any moment.

But returning to the matter in hand, I say that to command things hard
of execution, requires hardness in him who gives the command, and that
a man of this temper and who issues such commands, cannot look to
enforce them by gentleness. He who is not of such a temper must be
careful not to impose tasks of extraordinary difficulty, but may use
his natural gentleness in imposing such as are ordinary. For common
punishments are not imputed to the prince, but to the laws and
ordinances which he has to administer.

We must believe, therefore, that Manlius was constrained to act with
severity by the unusual character of the commands which his natural
disposition prompted him to issue. Such commands are useful in a
republic, as restoring its ordinances to their original efficacy and
excellence. And were a republic, as I have before observed, fortunate
enough to come frequently under the influence of men who, by their
example, reinforce its laws, and not only retard its progress towards
corruption, but bring it back to its first perfection, it might endure
for ever.

Manlius, therefore, was of those who by the severity of their commands
maintained the military discipline of Rome; urged thereto, in the first
place, by his natural temper, and next by the desire that whatever he
was minded to command should be done. Valerius, on the other hand,
could afford to act humanely, because for him it was enough if all were
done which in a Roman army it was customary to do. And, since the
customs of that army were good customs, they sufficed to gain him
honour, while at the same time their maintenance cost him no effort,
nor threw on him the burthen of punishing transgressors; as well
because there were none who trangressed, as because had there been any,
they would, as I have said, have imputed their punishment to the
ordinary rules of discipline, and not to the severity of their
commander. In this way Valerius had room to exercise that humane
disposition which enabled him at once to gain influence over his
soldiers and to content them. Hence it was that both these captains
obtaining the same obedience, could, while following different methods,
arrive at the same ends. Those, however, who seek to imitate them may
chance to fall into the errors of which I have already spoken, in
connection with Hannibal and Scipio, as breeding contempt or hatred,
and which are only to be corrected by the presence of extraordinary
valour, and not otherwise.

It rests now to determine which of these two methods is the more to be
commended. This, I take it, is matter of dispute, since both methods
have their advocates. Those writers, however, who have laid down rules
for the conduct of princes, describe a character approaching more
nearly to that of Valerius than to that of Manlius; and Xenophon, whom
I have already cited, while giving many instances of the humanity of
Cyrus, conforms closely to what Livius tells us of Valerius. For
Valerius being made consul against the Samnites, on the eve of battle
spoke to his men with the same kindliness with which he always treated
them; and Livius, after telling us what he said, remarks of him:
“_Never was there a leader more familiar with his men; cheerfully
sharing with the meanest among them every hardship and fatigue. Even in
the military games, wherein those of the same rank were wont to make
trial of their strength or swiftness, he would good-naturedly take a
part, nor disdain any adversary who offered; meeting victory or defeat
with an unruffled temper and an unchanged countenance. When called on
to act, his bounty and generosity never fell short. When he had to
speak, he was as mindful of the feelings of others as of his own
dignity. And, what more than anything else secures the popular favour,
he maintained when exercising his magistracies the same bearing he had
worn in seeking them._”

Of Manlius also, Titus Livius speaks in like honourable terms, pointing
out that his severity in putting his son to death brought the Roman
army to that pitch of discipline which enabled it to prevail against
the Latins, nay, he goes so far in his praises that after describing
the whole order of the battle, comparing the strength of both armies,
and showing all the dangers the Romans ran, and the difficulties they
had to surmount, he winds up by saying, that it was the valour of
Manlius which alone gained for them this great victory, and that
whichever side had Manlius for its leader must have won the day. So
that weighing all that the historians tell us of these two captains, it
might be difficult to decide between them.

Nevertheless, not to leave the question entirely open, I say, that for
a citizen living under a republic, I think the conduct of Manlius more
deserving of praise and less dangerous in its consequences. For methods
like his tend only to the public good and in no way subserve private
ends. He who shows himself harsh and stern at all times and to all men
alike, and is seen to care only for the common welfare, will never gain
himself partisans, since this is not the way to win personal friends,
to whom, as I said before, the name of partisans is given. For a
republic, therefore, no line of conduct could be more useful or more to
be desired than this, because in following it the public interest is
not neglected, and no room is given to suspect personal ambition.

But the contrary holds as to the methods followed by Valerius. For
though the public service they render be the same, misgivings must
needs arise that the personal good-will which, in the course of a
prolonged command, a captain obtains from his soldiers, may lead to
consequences fatal to the public liberty. And if this was not found to
happen in the case of Valerius, it was because the minds of the Roman
people were not yet corrupted, and because they had never remained for
a long time and continuously under his command.

Had we, however, like Xenophon, to consider what is most for the
interest of a prince, we should have to give up Manlius and hold by
Valerius; for, undoubtedly, a prince should strive to gain the love of
his soldiers and subjects, as well as their obedience. The latter he
can secure by discipline and by his reputation for valour. But for the
former he will be indebted to his affability, kindliness, gentleness,
and all those other like qualities which were possessed by Valerius,
and which are described by Xenophon as existing in Cyrus. That a prince
should be personally loved and have his army wholly devoted to him is
consistent with the character of his government; but that this should
happen to a person of private station does not consist with his
position as a citizen who has to live in conformity with the laws and
in subordination to the magistrates. We read in the early annals of the
Venetian Republic, that once, on the return of the fleet, a dispute
broke out between the sailors and the people, resulting in tumults and
armed violence which neither the efforts of the public officers, the
respect felt for particular citizens, nor the authority of the
magistrates could quell. But on a certain gentleman, who the year
before had been in command of these sailors, showing himself among
them, straightway, from the love they bore him, they submitted to his
authority and withdrew from the fray. Which deference on their part
aroused such jealousy and suspicion in the minds of the Venetian
senators that very soon after they got rid of this gentleman, either by
death or exile.

The sum of the matter, therefore, is, that the methods followed by
Valerius are useful in a prince, but pernicious in a private citizen,
both for his country and for himself, for his country, because such
methods pave the way to a tyranny; for himself, because his
fellow-citizens, growing suspicious of his conduct, are constrained to
protect themselves to his hurt. And conversely, I maintain, that the
methods of Manlius, while hurtful in a prince are useful in a citizen,
and in the highest degree for his country; and, moreover, seldom give
offence, unless the hatred caused by his severity be augmented by the
jealousy which the fame of his other virtues inspires: a matter now to
be considered in connection with the banishment of Camillas.