Comparison of Lysander and Sulla

It is true, indeed, that Lysander attempted, as I have said, to change the form of government, but it was by milder and more legal methods than Sulla’s; by persuasion, namely, not by force of arms, nor by subverting everything at once, as Sulla did, but by amending merely the appointment of the kings. And it seemed but natural justice, in a way, that the best of the best should rule in a city which had the leadership in Hellas by virtue of his excellence, and not of his noble birth.

For just as a hunter looks for a dog, and not the whelp of a certain bitch, and a horseman for a horse, and not the foal of a certain mare (for what if the foal should prove to be a mule?), so the statesman makes an utter mistake if he enquires, not what sort of a man the ruler is, but from whom he is descended. And indeed the Spartans themselves deposed some of their kings, for the reason that they were not kingly men, but insignificant nobodies. And if vice, even in one of ancient family, is dishonourable, then it must be virtue itself, and not good birth, that makes virtue honourable.

Moreover, the acts of injustice which one wrought, were in behalf of his friends; while the other’s extended to his friends. For it is generally agreed that Lysander committed the most of his transgressions for the sake of his comrades, and that most of his massacres were perpetrated to maintain their power and sovereignty;

but Sulla cut down the number of Pompey’s soldiers out of jealousy, and tried to take away from Dolabella the naval command which he had given him, and when Lucretius Ofella sued for the consulship as a reward for many great services, ordered him to be slain before his eyes, causing all men to regard him with fear and horror because of his murdering his dearest friends.