[1] As to the actual conduct of their expeditions, Nicias has not a little to his credit, for he conquered his enemies in many battles, and barely missed taking Syracuse, and not all his failures were due to himself, but they might be ascribed to his disease and to the jealousy of his fellow-citizens at home; but Crassus made so many blunders that he gave fortune no chance to favour him. We may not therefore wonder that his imbecility succumbed to the power of the Parthians, but rather that it prevailed over the usual good fortune of the Romans.
[2] Since one of them was wholly given to divination, and the other wholly neglected it, and both alike perished, it is hard to draw a safe conclusion from the premises; but failure from caution, going hand in hand with ancient and prevalent opinion, is more reasonable than lawlessness and obstinacy.
In his end, however, Crassus was the less worthy of reproach. He did not surrender himself, nor was he bound, nor yet beguiled, but yielded to the entreaties of his friends, and fell a prey to the perfidy of his enemies; whereas Nicias was led by the hope of a shameful and inglorious safety to put himself into the hands of his enemies, thereby making his death a greater disgrace for him.
In his end, however, Crassus was the less worthy of reproach. He did not surrender himself, nor was he bound, nor yet beguiled, but yielded to the entreaties of his friends, and fell a prey to the perfidy of his enemies; whereas Nicias was led by the hope of a shameful and inglorious safety to put himself into the hands of his enemies, thereby making his death a greater disgrace for him.
Comparison of Nicias and Crassus. Plutarch. Bernadotte Perrin (Translator). Cambridge, MA. 1916.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by Tufts University.