Then the young man: He began where he ended; he taught me tactics[8]-- tactics and nothing else.
[8] Cf. 'Cyrop.' I. vi. 12 foll.; VIII. v. 15.
Yet surely (replied Socrates) that is only an infinitisemal part of generalship. A general[9] must be ready in furnishing the material of war: in providing the commissariat for his troops; quick in devices, he must be full of practical resource; nothing must escape his eye or tax his endurance; he must be shrewd, and ready of wit, a combination at once of clemency and fierceness, of simplicity and of insidious craft; he must play the part of watchman, of robber; now prodigal as a spendthrift, and again close-fisted as a miser, the bounty of his munificence must be equalled by the narrowness of his greed; impregnable in defence, a very dare-devil in attack--these and many other qualities must he possess who is to make a good general and minister of war; they must come to him by gift of nature or through science. No doubt it is a grand thing also to be a tactician, since there is all the difference in the world between an army properly handled in the field and the same in disorder; just as stones and bricks, woodwork and tiles, tumbled together in a heap are of no use at all, but arrange them in a certain order--at bottom and atop materials which will not crumble or rot, such as stones and earthen tiles, and in the middle between the two put bricks and woodwork, with an eye to architectural principle,[10] and finally you get a valuable possession--to wit, a dwelling-place.
[9] A strategos. For the duties and spheres of action of this officer, see Gow, op. cit. xiv. 58.
[10] 'As in the building of a house.' See Vitrivius, ii. 3; Plin. xxv. 14.
The simile is very apt, Socrates[11] (replied the youth), for in battle, too, the rule is to draw up the best men in front and rear, with those of inferior quality between, where they may be led on by the former and pushed on by the hinder.
[11] Cf. 'Il.' iv. 297 foll.; 'Cyrop.' VI. iii. 25; Polyb. x. 22.
Soc. Very good, no doubt, if the professor taught you to distinguish good and bad; but if not, where is the use of your learning? It would scarcely help you, would it, to be told to arrange coins in piles, the best coins at top and bottom and the worst in the middle, unless you were first taught to distinguish real from counterfeit.
The Youth. Well no, upon my word, he did not teach us that, so that the task of distinguishing between good and bad must devolve on ourselves.
Soc. Well, shall we see, then, how we may best avoid making blunders between them?
I am ready (replied the youth).
Soc. Well then! Let us suppose we are marauders, and the task imposed upon us is to carry off some bullion; it will be a right disposition of our forces if we place in the vanguard those who are the greediest of gain?[12]
[12] 'Whose fingers itch for gold.'
The Youth. I should think so.
Soc. Then what if there is danger to be faced? Shall the vanguard consist of men who are greediest of honour?
The Youth. It is these, at any rate, who will face danger for the sake of praise and glory.[13] Fortunately such people are not hid away in a corner; they shine forth conspicuous everywhere, and are easy to be discovered.
[13] Cf. Shakesp. 'seeking the bubble reputation even in the cannon's mouth.'
Soc. But tell me, did he teach you how to draw up troops in general, or specifically where and how to apply each particular kind of tactical arrangement?
The Youth. Nothing of the sort.
Soc. And yet there are and must be innumerable circumstances in which the same ordering of march or battle will be out of place.
The Youth. I assure you he did not draw any of these fine distinctions.
He did not, did not he? (he answered). Bless me! Go back to him again, then, and ply him with questions; if he really has the science, and is not lost to all sense of shame, he will blush to have taken your money and then to have sent you away empty.
II
At another time he fell in with a man who had been chosen general and minister of war, and thus accosted him.
Soc. Why did Homer, think you, designate Agamemnon 'shepherd of the peoples'?[1] Was it possibly to show that, even as a shepherd must care for his sheep and see that they are safe and have all things needful, and that the objects of their rearing be secured, so also must a general take care that his soldiers are safe and have their supplies, and attain the objects of their soldiering? Which last is that they may get the mastery of their enemies, and so add to their own good fortune and happiness; or tell me, what made him praise Agamemnon, saying--
He is both a good king and a warrior bold?[2]
Did he mean, perhaps, to imply that he would be a 'warrior bold,' not merely in standing alone and bravely battling against the foe, but as inspiring the whole of his host with like prowess; and by a 'good king,' not merely one who should stand forth gallantly to protect his own life, but who should be the source of happiness to all over whom he reigns? Since a man is not chosen king in order to take heed to himself, albeit nobly, but that those who chose him may attain to happiness through him. And why do men go soldiering except to ameliorate existence?[3] and to this end they choose their generals that they may find in them guides to the goal in question. He, then, who undertakes that office is bound to procure for those who choose him the thing they seek for. And indeed it were not easy to find any nobler ambition than this, or aught ignobler than its opposite.
[1] 'Il.' ii. 243. 'The People's Paster,' Chapman.
[2] 'Il.' iii. 179; cf. 'Symp.' iv. 6. A favourite line of Alexander the Great's, it is said.
[3] Of, 'that life may reach some flower of happiness.'
After such sort he handled the question, what is the virtue of a good leader? and by shredding off all superficial qualities, laid bare as the kernel of the matter that it is the function of every leader to make those happy whom he may be called upon to lead.[4]
[4] Cf. Plat. 'Rep.' 342.
III
The following conversation with a youth who had just been elected hipparch[1] (or commandant of cavalry), I can also vouch for.[2]
[1] Cf. 'Hipparch.'
[2] Lit. 'I know he once held.'
Soc. Can you tell us what set you wishing to be a general of cavalry, young sir? What was your object? I suppose it was not simply to ride at the head of the 'knights,' an honour not denied to the mounted archers,[3] who ride even in front of the generals themselves?
[3] Lit. 'Hippotoxotai.' See Boeckh, 'P. E. A.' II. xxi. p. 264 (Eng. tr.)
Hipp. You are right.
Soc. No more was it for the sake merely of public notoriety, since a madman might boast of that fatal distinction.[4]
[4] Or, 'as we all know, 'Tom Fool' can boast,' etc.
Hipp. You are right again.
Soc. Is this possibly the explanation? you think to improve the cavalry--your aim would be to hand it over to the state in better condition than you find it; and, if the cavalry chanced to be called out, you at their head would be the cause of some good thing to Athens?
Hipp. Most certainly.
Soc. Well, and a noble ambition too, upon my word--if you can achieve your object. The command to which you are appointed concerns horses and riders, does it not?
Hipp. It does, no doubt.
Soc. Come then, will you explain to us first how you propose to improve the horses.
Hipp. Ah, that will scarcely form part of my business, I fancy. Each trooper is personally responsible for the condition of his horse.
Soc. But suppose, when they present themselves and their horses,[5] you find that some have brought beasts with bad feet or legs or otherwise infirm, and others such ill-fed jades that they cannot keep up on the march; others, again, brutes so ill broken and unmanageable that they will not keep their place in the ranks, and others such desperate plungers that they cannot be got to any place in the ranks at all. What becomes of your cavalry force then? How will you charge at the head of such a troop, and win glory for the state?
