Nulla tenaci invia est via

[Jim Land]

"Nulla tenaci invia est via" is the motto of the Spyker automobile
company in the Netherlands. http://www.spykercars.nl

They translate it as "for the tenacious no road is impassable".

OK, but I'm having a little trouble with the word order. Nulla (no) at
the beginning, via (road) at the end. Huh? My high school Latin balks
at this. Why not "Nulla via tenaci invia est"?

Help, anyone?

[Ed Cryer]

"Jim Land" <nortwes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgocu7$li4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Style.
"Nulla tenaci invia est via" sounds poetic and cool, whereas "Nulla via
tenaci invia est" sounds very prosaic.

Try them for yourself; read them aloud.

You can get something like the same effect in English.
Cool sentence - no path to the tough is pathless.
Prosaic - no path is pathless to the tough.

Ed

[Johannes Patruus]

I suspect it is modelled on this line of the half-Dutch scholar Jan Gruter
(d.1627):
"Nulla virtuti, favente numine, invia est via."

http://bit.ly/79RbhW

> Ed

Patruus

[Ed Cryer]

"Johannes Patruus" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7p9vhg...@mid.individual.net...

That seems make "virtus" dependent on some "numen".
Stoicism applauds "virtus" on its own; even thinks that it's "secundum
naturam".
Virtue is its own reward.

Ed

[Jim Land]

Thanks, everyone.
Happy holidays.

[Ed Cryer]

"B. T. Raven" <ni...@nihilo.net> wrote in message
news:CfCdnTuYSbwaRrLW...@sysmatrix.net...

> If you don't want to hear about numina, how about this version?:
>
> With a little bit of luck no route is impassable to the obstinate.
>
> Eduardus

I want to be like Wyatt Earp. Somebody who saw the Earp brothers and Doc
Holliday striding down the main street of Dodge City toward the OK
Corral later said "It was the darndest thing I ever saw".
That's what I want to be; the darndest thing someone ever saw.
Brave, knowledgeable, man of action. The darndest thing you ever saw.
And it sticks in your memory and alters your future behaviour. One man
putting his life on the line for good middle class values; so that women
can walk unmolested and uninsulted, so that commerce can go on without
bribery and corruption, so that this new untamed land can produce good
people.

The darndest thing I ever saw. And I'll never forget it. It's become the
very epitome of the meaning of life itself; the courage of your
convictions; dulce et decorum est pro virtute mori.

Ed

[Evertjan.]

B. T. Raven wrote on 21 dec 2009 in alt.language.latin:

>>>> Nulla tenaci invia est via

> With a little bit of luck no route is impassable to the obstinate.

Progresso strenuo strenui progrediuntur.

[ = When the going gets tough, the tough get going. ]

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Evertjan.]

B. T. Raven wrote on 22 dec 2009 in alt.language.latin:

> Evertjan. wrote:
>> B. T. Raven wrote on 21 dec 2009 in alt.language.latin:
>>
>>>>>> Nulla tenaci invia est via
>>
>>> With a little bit of luck no route is impassable to the obstinate.
>

> My translation above actually referred to this:

> "Nulla virtuti, favente numine, invia est via."
>
>>
>>

>> Progresso strenuo strenui progrediuntur.
>>
>> [ = When the going gets tough, the tough get going. ]
>>
>

> The verb sounds right to me. I don't know if you want "progresso"
> [gerund?] or "progressu" [noun].

progressio, -ionis better?

Progressione strenuo, strenui progrediuntur.

> If you need tough - tough to be the
> same in Latin, then it might not be possible to translate. The sense in
> English is:
> Itinere arduo, robusti [fortes, valentes] progrediuntur, [procedunt,
> prodeunt, procurrunt, prorsus nituntur, proficiscuntur.]

Yes I know the substantivated strenuus probebly does not exist,
but the beauty of alliteration might give me some excuse?

or perhaps:

Duritia itineris iterum progrediamur.

;-)

[Tobias, your man in Amsterdam]

I agree with you Jim. Or: Nulla via invia tenaci. The est is optional.

In any case the tenaci belongs further back.

My 2 cents.

[Sally]

It just sounds better. When it ends in est, it sounds kind of abrupt.
The second way is also harder to say....it's more of a mouthful. The
articulators have to work harder. Teeth, tongue, lips, hard palate,
soft palate. Ending on an open vowel is more mellifluous than ending
on a t sound.

Purely my own opinion.

Sally

[paa...@gmail.com]

2009. december 21., hétfő 18:57:26 UTC+1 időpontban Jim Land

"Nulla tenaci invia est via"

"The World is not enough"

[Ed Cryer]

Non sufficit mundus.

It's said that Alexander the Great complained that there weren't enough
worlds to conquer.
I can believe it. He was master of half the known one when he died at 32
of swamp fever.
What if he'd lived; and turned westward against Carthage at her height
and Rome just starting her spectacular rise.; and, of course, the Celts?

Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Livy has a long section devoted to this question in book 9.
quinam euentus Romanis rebus, si cum Alexandro foret bellatum, futurus
fuerit.
How would Rome have fared in a war with Alexander?

I append it below, with English translation.
His comments appear very mature and apropos to me. Alexander led with an
extraordinary charisma, always in front and often wounded. But finally
his army refused to go further east, and they were on the way back home
to Greece when he died. He wasn't the Alexander who'd set out 10 years
earlier.
I'm a bit doubtful of Livy's dismissal of the Macedonian phalanx. It
flummoxed enemy after enemy in the east, while the infantry got held in
place with the long sarissas and the Macedonian cavalry outmanoeuvred
their opponents on the wings and then chopped into the infantry. Tactics
like that had prevailed against vastly superior Persian forces.

Ed




Haud dubie illa aetate, qua nulla uirtutum feracior fuit, nemo unus erat
uir quo magis innixa res Romana staret. Quin eum parem destinant animis
magno Alexandro ducem, si arma Asia perdomita in Europam uertisset.—

[17] Nihil minus quaesitum a principio huius operis uideri potest quam
ut plus iusto ab rerum ordine declinarem uarietatibusque distinguendo
opere et legentibus uelut deuerticula amoena et requiem animo meo
quaererem; tamen tanti regis ac ducis mentio, quibus saepe tacitus
cogitationibus uolutaui animum, eas euocat in medium, ut quaerere libeat
quinam euentus Romanis rebus, si cum Alexandro foret bellatum, futurus
fuerit. Plurimum in bello pollere uidentur militum copia et uirtus,
ingenia imperatorum, fortuna per omnia humana maxime in res bellicas
potens; ea et singula intuenti et uniuersa sicut ab aliis regibus
gentibusque, ita ab hoc quoque facile praestant inuictum Romanum
imperium. Iam primum, ut ordiar ab ducibus comparandis, haud equidem
abnuo egregium ducem fuisse Alexandrum; sed clariorem tamen eum facit
quod unus fuit, quod adulescens in incremento rerum, nondum alteram
fortunam expertus, decessit. Vt alios reges claros ducesque omittam,
magna exempla casuum humanorum, Cyrum, quem maxime Graeci laudibus
celebrant, quid nisi longa uita, sicut Magnum modo Pompeium, uertenti
praebuit fortunae? recenseam duces Romanos, nec omnes omnium aetatium
sed ipsos eos cum quibus consulibus aut dictatoribus Alexandro fuit
bellandum, M. Valerium Coruum, C. Marcium Rutulum, C. Sulpicium, T.
Manlium Torquatum, Q. Publilium Philonem, L. Papirium Cursorem, Q.
Fabium Maximum, duos Decios, L. Volumnium, M". Curium? deinceps ingentes
sequuntur uiri, si Punicum Romano praeuertisset bellum seniorque in
Italiam traiecisset. Horum in quolibet cum indoles eadem quae in
Alexandro erat animi ingeniique, tum disciplina militaris, iam inde ab
initiis urbis tradita per manus, in artis perpetuis praeceptis ordinatae
modum uenerat. Ita reges gesserant bella, ita deinde exactores regum
Iunii Valeriique, ita deinceps Fabii, Quinctii, Cornelii, ita Furius
Camillus, quem iuuenes ii quibus cum Alexandro dimicandum erat senem
uiderant. Militaris opera pugnando obeunti Alexandro—nam ea quoque haud
minus clarum eum faciunt—cessisset uidelicet in acie oblatus par Manlius
Torquatus aut Valerius Coruus, insignes ante milites quam duces,
cessissent Decii, deuotis corporibus in hostem ruentes, cessisset
Papirius Cursor illo corporis robore, illo animi. Victus esset consiliis
iuuenis unius, ne singulos nominem, senatus ille, quem qui ex regibus
constare dixit unus ueram speciem Romani senatus cepit. Id uero erat
periculum, ne sollertius quam quilibet unus ex his quos nominaui castris
locum caperet, commeatus expediret, ab insidiis praecaueret, tempus
pugnae deligeret, aciem instrueret, subsidiis firmaret. Non cum Dareo
rem esse dixisset, quem mulierum ac spadonum agmen trahentem inter
purpuram atque aurum oneratum fortunae apparatibus suae, praedam uerius
quam hostem, nihil aliud quam bene ausus uana contemnere, incruentus
deuicit. Longe alius Italiae quam Indiae, per quam temulento agmine
comisabundus incessit, uisus illi habitus esset, saltus Apuliae ac
montes Lucanos cernenti et uestigia recentia domesticae cladis, ubi
auunculus eius nuper, Epiri rex Alexander, absumptus erat.

[18] Et loquimur de Alexandro nondum merso secundis rebus, quarum nemo
intolerantior fuit. Qui si ex habitu nouae fortunae nouique, ut ita
dicam, ingenii quod sibi uictor induerat spectetur, Dareo magis similis
quam Alexandro in Italiam uenisset et exercitum Macedoniae oblitum
degenerantemque iam in Persarum mores adduxisset. Referre in tanto rege
piget superbam mutationem uestis et desideratas humi iacentium
adulationes, etiam uictis Macedonibus graues nedum uictoribus, et foeda
supplicia et inter uinum et epulas caedes amicorum et uanitatem
ementiendae stirpis. Quid si uini amor in dies fieret acrior? quid si
trux ac praeferuida ira?—nec quicquam dubium inter scriptores
refero—nullane haec damna imperatoriis uirtutibus ducimus? id uero
periculum erat, quod leuissimi ex Graecis qui Parthorum quoque contra
nomen Romanum gloriae fauent dictitare solent, ne maiestatem nominis
Alexandri, quem ne fama quidem illis notum arbitror fuisse, sustinere
non potuerit populus Romanus; et aduersus quem Athenis, in ciuitate
fracta Macedonum armis, cernente tum maxime prope fumantes Thebarum
ruinas, contionari libere ausi sunt homines, id quod ex monumentis
orationum patet, aduersus eum nemo ex tot proceribus Romanis uocem
liberam missurus fuerit. Quantalibet magnitudo hominis concipiatur
animo; unius tamen ea magnitudo hominis erit collecta paulo plus decem
annorum felicitate; quam qui eo extollunt quod populus Romanus etsi
nullo bello multis tamen proeliis uictus sit, Alexandro nullius pugnae
non secunda fortuna fuerit, non intellegunt se hominis res gestas, et
eius iuuenis, cum populi iam octingentesimum bellantis annum rebus
conferre. Miremur si, cum ex hac parte saecula plura numerentur quam ex
illa anni, plus in tam longo spatio quam in aetate tredecim annorum
fortuna uariauerit? quin tu homines cum homine, [et] duces cum duce,
fortunam cum fortuna confers? quot Romanos duces nominem quibus nunquam
aduersa fortuna pugnae fuit? paginas in annalibus magistratuumque fastis
percurrere licet consulum dictatorumque quorum nec uirtutis nec fortunae
ullo die populum Romanum paenituit. Et quo sint mirabiliores quam
Alexander aut quisquam rex, denos uicenosque dies quidam dictaturam,
nemo plus quam annum consulatum gessit; ab tribunis plebis dilectus
impediti sunt; post tempus ad bella ierunt, ante tempus comitiorum causa
reuocati sunt; in ipso conatu rerum circumegit se annus; collegae nunc
temeritas, nunc prauitas impedimento aut damno fuit; male gestis rebus
alterius successum est; tironem aut mala disciplina institutum exercitum
acceperunt. At hercule reges non liberi solum impedimentis omnibus sed
domini rerum temporumque trahunt consiliis cuncta, non sequuntur.
Inuictus ergo Alexander cum inuictis ducibus bella gessisset et eadem
fortunae pignora in discrimen detulisset; immo etiam eo plus periculi
subisset quod Macedones unum Alexandrum habuissent, multis casibus non
solum obnoxium sed etiam offerentem se, Romani multi fuissent Alexandro
uel gloria uel rerum magnitudine pares, quorum suo quisque fato sine
publico discrimine uiueret morereturque.

[19] Restat ut copiae copiis comparentur uel numero uel militum genere
uel multitudine auxiliorum. Censebantur eius aetatis lustris ducena
quinquagena milia capitum. Itaque in omni defectione sociorum Latini
nominis urbano prope dilectu decem scribebantur legiones; quaterni
quinique exercitus saepe per eos annos in Etruria, in Vmbria Gallis
hostibus adiunctis, in Samnio, in Lucanis gerebat bellum. Latium deinde
omne cum Sabinis et Volscis et Aequis et omni Campania et parte Vmbriae
Etruriaeque et Picentibus et Marsis Paelignisque ac Vestinis atque
Apulis, adiuncta omni ora Graecorum inferi maris a Thuriis Neapolim et
Cumas et inde Antio atque Ostiis tenus Samnites aut socios ualidos
Romanis aut fractos bello inuenisset hostes. Ipse traiecisset mare cum
ueteranis Macedonibus non plus triginta milibus hominum et quattuor
milibus equitum, maxime Thessalorum; hoc enim roboris erat. Persas Indos
aliasque si adiunxisset gentes, impedimentum maius quam auxilium
traheret. Adde quod Romanis ad manum domi supplementum esset, Alexandro,
quod postea Hannibali accidit, alieno in agro bellanti exercitus
consenuisset. Arma clupeus sarisaeque illis; Romano scutum, maius
corpori tegumentum, et pilum, haud paulo quam hasta uehementius ictu
missuque telum. Statarius uterque miles, ordines seruans; sed illa
phalanx immobilis et unius generis, Romana acies distinctior, ex
pluribus partibus constans, facilis partienti, quacumque opus esset,
facilis iungenti. Iam in opere quis par Romano miles? quis ad tolerandum
laborem melior? uno proelio uictus Alexander bello uictus esset:
Romanum, quem Caudium, quem Cannae non fregerunt, quae fregisset acies?
ne ille saepe, etiamsi prima prospere euenissent, Persas et Indos et
imbellem Asiam quaesisset et cum feminis sibi bellum fuisse dixisset,
quod Epiri regem Alexandrum mortifero uolnere ictum dixisse ferunt,
sortem bellorum in Asia gestorum ab hoc ipso iuuene cum sua conferentem.
Equidem cum per annos quattuor et uiginti primo Punico bello classibus
certatum cum Poenis recordor, uix aetatem Alexandri suffecturam fuisse
reor ad unum bellum. Et forsitan, cum et foederibus uetustis iuncta res
Punica Romanae esset et timor par aduersus communem hostem duas
potentissimas armis uirisque urbes armaret, [et] simul Punico Romanoque
obrutus bello esset. Non quidem Alexandro duce nec integris Macedonum
rebus sed experti tamen sunt Romani Macedonem hostem aduersus Antiochum
Philippum Persen non modo cum clade ulla sed ne cum periculo quidem suo.
Absit inuidia uerbo et ciuilia bella sileant: nunquam ab equite hoste,
nunquam a pedite, nunquam aperta acie, nunquam aequis, utique nunquam
nostris locis laborauimus: equitem, sagittas, saltus impeditos, auia
commeatibus loca grauis armis miles timere potest. Mille acies grauiores
quam Macedonum atque Alexandri auertit auertetque, modo sit perpetuus
huius qua uiuimus pacis amor et ciuilis cura concordiae.—

*******************************************


There can be no doubt that in his generation, than which none was ever
more fruitful of great qualities, there was no single man who did more
to uphold the Roman State. indeed people regard him as one who might
have been a match in generalship for Alexander the Great, if the latter,
after subjugating Asia, had turned his arms against Europe.

17. nothing can be thought to have been more remote from my intention,
since I first set about this task, than to depart unduly from the order
of events, and to aim, by the introduction of ornamental digressions, at
providing as it were agreeable [p. 227]bypaths for the reader, and
mental relaxation for55 myself. [2] nevertheless the mention of so great
a prince and captain evokes certain thoughts which I have often silently
pondered in my mind, and disposes me to enquire how the Roman State
would have fared in a war with Alexander.56

[3] it appears that in war the factors of chief importance are the
numbers and valour of the soldiers, the abilities of the commanders, and
Fortune, which, powerful in all the affairs of men, is especially so in
war. [4] These factors, whether viewed separately or conjointly, afford
a ready assurance, that, even as against other princes and nations, so
also against this one the might of Rome would have proved invincible.
[5] first of all —to begin by comparing commanders —I do not deny that
Alexander was a remarkable general; still, his fame was enhanced by the
fact that he was a sole commander, and the further fact that he died
young, in the flood —tide of success, when as yet he had experienced no
other lot. [6] not to speak of other distinguished kings and generals,
illustrious proofs of human vicissitude, what else was it but length of
days that exposed Cyrus, whom the Greeks exalt so high in their
panegyrics, to the fickleness of Fortune? [7] and the same thing was
lately seen in the case of Pompey the Great. need I repeat the names of
the Roman generals, not all nor of every age, but those very ones with
whom, as consuls or as dictators, Alexander would have had to fight
—Marcus [8] Valerius Corvus, Gaius Marcius Rutulus, Gaius Sulpicius,
Titus Manlius Torquatus, Quintus Publilius Philo, Lucius Papirius
Cursor, Quintus Fabius Maximus, [p. 229]the two Decii, Lucius Volumnius,
Manius Curius?57 [9] after these come some extraordinary men, if he had
turned his attention to war with Carthage first and later with Rome, and
had crossed into Italy when somewhat old. [10] any one of these was as
highly endowed with courage and talents as was Alexander; and military
training, handed down from the very beginning of the City, had taken on
the character of a profession, built up on comprehensive principles.
[11] so the kings had warred; so after them the expellers of the kings,
the Junii and the Valerii, and so in succession the Fabii, Quinctii,
Cornelii, and Furius Camillus, whom in his old age those had seen, as
youths, who would have had to fight with Alexander. [12] but in the
performance of a soldier's work in battle —for which Alexander was no
less distinguished —Manlius Torquatus or Valerius Corvus would,
forsooth, have yielded to him, had they met him in a hand —to —hand
encounter, famous though they were as soldiers before ever they won
renown as captains! [13] The Decii, of course, would have yielded to
him, who hurled their devoted bodies upon the foe! Papirius Cursor would
have yielded, with that wondrous strength of body and of spirit! [14]
The counsels of a single youth would no doubt have got the better of
that senate —not to speak of individual members —which was called an
assembly of kings by him who before all others had a true conception of
the Roman Senate!58 [15] and I suppose there was the danger that
Alexander would display more skill than any of these whom I have named,
in selecting a place for a camp, in organizing his service of supply, in
guarding against ambuscades, in choosing a time for battle, in [p.
231]marshalling his troops, in providing strong reserves!59 [16] he
would have said it was no Darius60 whom he had to deal with, trailing
women and eunuchs after him, and weighed down with the gold and purple
trappings of his station. him he found a booty rather than an enemy, and
conquered without bloodshed, merely by daring to despise vain shows.
[17] far different from India, through which he progressed at the head
of a rout of drunken revellers, would Italy have appeared to him, as he
gazed on the passes of Apulia and the Lucanian mountains, and the still
fresh traces of that family disaster wherein his uncle, King Alexander
of Epirus, had lost his life.61

18. and we are speaking of an Alexander not yet overwhelmed with
prosperity, which none has ever been less able to bear. [2] for viewing
him in the light of his new fortune and of the new character —if I may
use the expression —which [3] he had assumed as conqueror, he would
evidently have come to Italy more like Darius than like Alexander, at
the head of an army that had forgotten Macedonia and was already
adopting the degenerate customs of the Persians. [4] i am loath, in
writing of so great a prince, to remind the reader of the ostentatious
alteration in his dress, and of his desire that men should prostrate
themselves in adulation, a thing which even conquered Macedonians would
have found oppressive, much more then those who had been victorious; [5]
of his cruel punishments and the murder of his friends as they drank and
feasted; of the boastful lie about his origin.62 what if his love of
wine had [p. 233]every day grown stronger? and his truculent and63 fiery
anger? [6] i mention only things which historians regard as certain. can
we deem such vices to be no detraction from a general's good qualities?
but there was forsooth the danger —as the silliest of the Greeks,64 who
exalt the reputation even of the Parthians against the Romans, are fond
of alleging —that [7] the Roman People would have been unable to
withstand the majesty of Alexander's name, though I think that they had
not so much as heard of him; and that out of all the Roman nobles not
one would have dared to lift up his voice against him, although in
Athens, a city crushed by the arms of Macedonia, at the very moment when
men had before their eyes the reeking ruins of the [8??] neighbouring
Thebes, they dared inveigh against him freely, as witness the records of
their speeches.65

[9] however imposing the greatness of the man may appear to us, still
this greatness will be that of one man only, and the fruits of little
more than ten years of success. those who magnify it for this reason,
that the Roman People, albeit never in any war, have yet suffered defeat
in a number of battles, whereas Alexander's fortune was never aught but
prosperous in any battle, fail to perceive that they are comparing the
achievements of a man —and [10] a young man too —with those of a people
that was now in its four hundredth year of warfare. [11] should it
occasion us surprise if, seeing that upon the one side are counted more
generations than are years [p. 235]upon the other,66 fortune should have
varied more67 in that long time than in a life of thirteen years? [12]
why not compare a man's fortune with a man's, and a general's with a
general's? How many Roman generals could I name who never suffered a
reverse in battle! in our annals and lists of magistrates you may run
through pages of consuls and dictators of whom it never on any day
repented the Roman People, whether of their generalship or fortune. [13]
and what makes them more wonderful than Alexander or any king is this:
some were dictators of ten or twenty days, and none held the consulship
above a year; [14] their levies were obstructed by the tribunes of the
plebs; they were late in going to war, and were called back early to
conduct elections; [15] in the midst of their undertakings the year
rolled round; now the rashness, now the frowardness of a colleague
occasioned them losses or difficulties; they succeeded to affairs which
others had mismanaged, they received an army of raw recruits, or one
badly disciplined. [16] now consider kings: not only are they free from
all impediments, but they are lords of time and circumstance, and in
their counsels carry all things with them, instead of following in their
train. [17] so then, an undefeated Alexander would have warred against
undefeated generals, and would have brought the same pledges of Fortune
to the crisis. [18] nay, he would have run a greater risk than they,
inasmuch as the Macedonians would have had but a single Alexander, not
only exposed to many dangers, but [p. 237]incurring them voluntarily,
while there would have68 been [19??] many Romans a match for Alexander,
whether for glory or for the greatness of their deeds, of whom each
several one would have lived and died as his own fate commanded, without
endangering the State.

19. it remains to compare the forces on both sides, whether for numbers,
or types of soldiers, or size of their contingents of auxiliaries. [2]
The quinquennial enumerations of that period put the population at
250,000.69 And so at the time when all the Latin allies were in revolt70
it was the custom to enroll ten legions, by a levy which was virtually
limited to the City. [3] in those years frequently four and five armies
at a time would take the field, in Etruria, in Umbria (where they also
fought the Gauls), in Samnium, and in Lucania. [4] later on Alexander
would have found all Latium, with the Sabines, the Volsci and the Aequi,
all Campania, and a portion of Umbria and Etruria, the Picentes and the
Marsi and Paeligni, the Vestini and the Apulians, together with the
whole coast of the Lower Sea, held by the Greeks, from Thurii as far as
Naples and Cumae, and thence all the way to Antium and Ostia —all these,
I say, he would have found either powerful friends of the Romans or
their defeated enemies. [5] he himself would have crossed the sea with
veteran Macedonians to the number of not more than thirty thousand foot
and four thousand horse —mostly Thessalians —for this was his main
strength. if to these he had added Persians and Indians and other
nations, he would have found them a greater burden to have dragged about
than a help.

[6] [p. 239] add to this, that the Romans would have had recruits71
ready to call upon, but Alexander, [7??] as happened afterwards to
Hannibal, would have found his army wear away, while he warred in a
foreign land. [8] his men would have been armed with targets and
spears:72 the Romans with an oblong shield, affording more protection to
the body, and the Roman javelin, which strikes, on being thrown, with a
much harder impact than the lance.73 [9] both armies were formed of
heavy troops, keeping to their ranks; but their phalanx was immobile and
consisted of soldiers of a single type; the Roman line was opener and
comprised more separate units; it was easy to divide, wherever
necessary, and easy to unite. moreover, what soldier can match the Roman
in entrenching? who is better at enduring toil? [10] Alexander would, if
beaten in a single battle, have been beaten in the war; but what battle
could have overthrown the Romans, whom Caudium could not overthrow, nor
Cannae? [11] nay, many a time —however prosperous the outset of his
enterprise might have been —would he have wished for Indians and
Persians and unwarlike Asiatics, and would have owned that he had before
made war upon women, as Alexander, King of Epirus, is reported to have
said, [12??] when mortally wounded, contrasting the type of war waged by
this very youth in Asia, with that which had fallen to his own share.74

[13] indeed when I remember that we contended against the Carthaginians
on the seas for [p. 241]four —andtwenty years, I think that the whole
life of Alexander75 would hardly have sufficed for this single war; and
perchance, inasmuch as the Punic State had been by ancient treaties
leagued with the Roman,76 and the two cities most powerful in men and
arms might well have made common cause against the foe whom both
dreaded, he had been crushed beneath the simultaneous attacks of Rome
and Carthage. [14] The Romans have been at war with the Macedonians
—not, to be sure, when Alexander led them or their prosperity was
unimpaired, but against Antiochus, Philippus, and Perses —and not only
without ever suffering defeat, but even without incurring any danger.
[15] proud word I would not speak, but never —and may civil wars be
silent! — never have we been beaten by infantry, never in open battle,
never on even, or at all events on favourable ground: [16] cavalry and
arrows, impassable defiles, regions that afford no road to convoys, may
well occasion fear in heavy —armed troops. [17] a thousand battle
—arrays more formidable than those of Alexander and the Macedonians have
the Romans beaten off —and shall do —if only our present love of
domestic peace endure and our concern to maintain concord.