[212] ἀλλ´ ἦσαν ἐλάττους μὲν ἔξω, ἐλάττους δὲ οἴκοι, καὶ (212) τὸ προϊέναι τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτοῖς εἰς ἄπορον καθίστατο οὐκ ἔχουσι τὰ τελευταῖα δι´ ὅτων αὐτὴν καθέξουσιν· ὥστε τοὔμπαλιν ἔσπευδον ὧν ἐδέοντο. καὶ ἦν τὸ μὲν προχωρεῖν αὐτοῖς ἃ ἐβούλοντο ἀμήχανον καὶ κατάρας ἐγγὺς, τὸ δὲ μὴ προχωρεῖν κουφότερόν τε καὶ ἥττους ἔχον τοὺς φόβους. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ἢ διοικιζομένοις ἐῴκεσαν ἀντὶ ἀρχόντων καὶ πονοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ πονεῖν. ἅμα γὰρ τῷ τέλει τὸ κεφάλαιον εὐθὺς ἐλάνθανε λυόμενον, καὶ πάλιν εἰς ταυτὸ κατὰ τοὺς ποιητὰς κατῄει. ἔτι δ´ οὔτ´ ἰσχύειν αὐτοῖς συνέφερε τοὺς ἀρχομένους διὰ τὰς ἐπιβουλὰς οὔτ´ ἀσθενεῖς εἶναι διὰ τοὺς παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν αὖ πολέμους καὶ ὅπως ᾖ τι πλέον τῆς συμμαχίας, ἀλλ´ ἐπεπόνθεσαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς παραπλήσιον ὅπερ οἱ ἐν ταῖς παιδιαῖς τῇ μὲν εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν ἄγοντες, τῇ δ´ εἰς τοὔπισθεν ἀνθέλκοντες, οὐκ ἔχοντες ὅ τι χρήσονται, ἀλλ´ οἷον εἶναί τε καὶ μὴ εἶναι αὐτοὺς βουλόμενοι αὐτοὶ μεταχειριζόμενοί τε καὶ ἄγοντες, ἐν οἷς σπεύδουσιν εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχοντες. τὸ δὲ πάντων γελοιότατόν τε καὶ ἀτοπώτατον, ἐπὶ γὰρ τοὺς ἀφισταμένους αὐτῶν τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐν νῷ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιεῖν ἔχοντας ἠνάγκαζον ἰέναι, παραπλήσιον ποιοῦντες ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀφεστηκότας ἐφ´ ἑαυτοὺς ἔπειθον ἰέναι, καὶ οὐκ ἐλογίζοντο τοὺς τῆς ἐκείνων ὄντας μερίδος τούτους ἐπ´ αὐτοὺς ἄγοντες, οἷς οὐκ ἐλυσιτέλει δή που καθ´ αὑτῶν καταδεικνύναι τὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις σπουδῇ βοηθεῖν. ὥστε κἀνταῦθα τοὐναντίον ἢ ἐβούλοντό τε καὶ συνέφερε διεπράττοντο· βουλόμενοι γὰρ τοὺς ἀφισταμένους προσάγεσθαι καὶ τοὺς παραμένοντας ἂν ἐποίουν ἀφίστασθαι. ἐδείκνυσαν γὰρ αὐτοῖς ὅτι μένοντες μὲν ἐπ´ ἀλλήλους ὑπάρξουσιν αὐτοῖς, κοινῇ δ´ ἅπαντες ἀποστάντες ἐλεύθεροι βεβαίως ἔσονται· οὐ γὰρ καταλείψουσι τελευτῶντες δι´ ὧν ληφθήσονται.

[212] They were inferior abroad and inferior at home. The expansion of their empire put them in a quandary, for in the end they would be without the wherewithal to hold on to it. Thus they were after the opposite of what they needed. Success was a hardship for them, almost a curse; fallure was a relief — they had less to fear. Instead of rulers, they seemed no different from scattered outcasts, struggling for the sake of struggling. As soon as they finished, the whole structure would collapse before they knew it. As the poets say, down it went, to the same point as before. It was furthermore not to their advantage for their subjects to be either strong or weak. If strong, they would plot revoit; if weak, they would be helpless against invasion and useless as allies. Their relations with their subjects were like a game where you keep pulling people forward with one hand and dragging them back with the other. They did not know what to do with them. They apparently wanted them to be and not to be. While manipulating and driving their subjects, they themselves could not tell what they were after. The most absurd and illogical part of it was that in case of revolt they would force the rest of their subjects, who had the same action in mind, to march against the rebels. They might just as well have begged those very rebels, "Please march against us." They did not realize they were leading against the rebels men who were on the rebels' side. It was surely not wise for them, against their own interests, to give their subjects the idea of fighting zealously for someone else. Here too they accomplished the opposite of their desire and their advantage. They wanted to win the rebels over; instead they made rebels of those who would have remained loyal. They taught them. "If you are loyal, we can use you against one another. But if you all join in revolt, you will surely be free, for in the long run you will leave us no forces with which to overcome you."