Plutarch Comparison of Nicias and Crassus 3

[1] When, however, a man wields superior power in a city which is open to the appeals of virtue, he should not give a footing to the base, nor command to those who are no commanders at all, nor confidence to those who deserve no confidence. But this is just what Nicias did when, of his own motion, he set Cleon in command of the army, a man who was nothing more to the city than a shameless brawler from the bema.

[2] I do not, indeed, commend Crassus, in the war with Spartacus, for pressing forward into action with greater speed than safety, although it was natural for a man of his ambition to fear that Pompey would come and rob him of his glory, just as Mummius had robbed Metellus of Corinth; but the conduct of Nicias was altogether strange and terrible. For it was not while it afforded him good hopes of success, or even of ease, that he renounced his ambition to hold the command in favour of his enemy, but when he saw that his generalship involved him in great peril, then he was content to betray the common good at the price of his own safety.

[3] And yet Themistocles, during the Persian wars, to prevent a worthless and senseless man from ruining the city as one of its generals, bought him off from the office; and Cato stood for the tribuneship when he saw that it would involve him in the greatest toil and danger in behalf of the city.

[4] Nicias, on the other hand, kept himself in the command against Minoa, and Cythera, and the wretched Melians, but when it was necessary to fight the Lacedaemonians, stripped off his general’s cloak, handed over to the inexperience and rashness of Cleon ships, men, arms, and a command requiring the utmost experience, and so betrayed not only his own reputation, but the security and safety of his own country.

[5] Wherefore he was afterwards forced, against his wish and inclination, to wage war on Syracuse, for it was thought to be no calculation of what was expedient, but merely his love of ease and lack of spirit which made him use all his efforts to rob the city of Sicily.
  There is, however, this proof of his great reasonableness, namely, that although he was always averse to war and avoided military command, the Athenians ceased not to elect him to it, believing him to be their most experienced and best general.

[6] Whereas Crassus, though he was all the while eager for military command, did not succeed in getting it except in the servile war, and then of necessity, because Pompey and Metellus and both the Luculli were away. And yet by that time he had acquired the greatest honour and influence in the city. But it would seem that even his best friends thought him, in the words of the comic poet, ¹

[7] And yet this did not prevent the Romans from being overwhelmed by his ambitious love of command. For the Athenians sent Nicias out to the war against his will; but the Romans were led out by Crassus against theirs. It was owing to Crassus that his city, but to his city that Nicias, suffered misfortune.