Comparison of Agis and Cleomenes and the Gracchi

But the most important consideration is that through the political activity of the Gracchi Rome made no advance in greatness, whereas, in consequence of the achievements of Cleomenes, within a short time Greece beheld Sparta mistress of the Peloponnesus and carrying on a struggle for the supremacy with those who then had the greatest power, the object of which struggle was to set Greece free from Illyrian and Gaelic troops and array her once more under descendants of Heracles.

I think, too, that the way in which the men died makes manifest a difference in their high excellence. For the Gracchi fought against their fellow citizens, and then died as they sought to make their escape; but in the case of the Greeks, Agis would not kill a single citizen, and therefore died what one might almost call a voluntary death, and Cleomenes, after setting out to avenge himself for insults and wrongs, found the occasion unfavourable and with a good courage slew himself.

But again, when we take the opposite view of their relative merits, Agis displayed no deed worthy of a great commander, but was cut off untimely, and with the many honourable victories won by Cleomenes we can compare the capture of the wall at Carthage by Tiberius, which was no trifling deed, and his truce at Numantia, by which twenty thousand Roman soldiers who had no other hope of salvation were spared; and Caius, too, manifested great bravery in military service at home, and great bravery in Sardinia, so that the brothers might have vied successfully with the foremost Roman generals, had they not been cut off untimely.

In their civic activities, however, Agis would seem to have taken hold of things with too little spirit; he was baffled by Agesilaüs, and broke his promise to the citizens about the redistribution of lands, and in a word abandoned and left unfinished the designs which he had deliberately formed and announced, owing to a lack of courage due to his youth. Cleomenes, on the contrary, undertook his change of the constitution with too much rashness and violence, killing the ephors in unlawful fashion, when it would have been easier to win them over to his views or remove them by superiority in arms, just as he removed many others from the city.

For a resort to the knife, except under extremest necessity, is not the mark either of a good physician or statesman, but in both cases shows a lack of skill, and in the case of the statesman there is added both injustice and cruelty. Neither of the Gracchi, however, initiated civil slaughter, and Caius, we are told, would not resort to self-defence even when his life was threatened, but though he was a most brilliant soldier in the field, he showed himself most inactive in civil strife.

For he went forth from his house unarmed and withdrew when the battle began, and in a word was seen to be more intent upon not doing any harm to others than upon not suffering harm himself. Therefore we must hold that the flight of the brothers was not a mark of cowardice, but of caution. For they were obliged either to yield to their assailants, or, in case they held their ground, to defend themselves actively against harm.