autocratic monarchs against those whom they have forcibly enslaved,
and in respect of these wars there is no hardship which any member of
the states at war[11] can suffer but the tyrant will feel it also.
That is to say, both must alike be under arms, keep guard, run risks;
and whatever the pains of defeat may be, they are equally sustained by
both. Up to this point there is no distinction. The "bitters" are
equal. But when we come to estimate the "sweets" derivable from
warfare between states,[12] the parallel ceases. The tyrant, if he
shared the pains before, no longer shares the pleasures now. What
happens when a state has gained the mastery in battle over her
antagonist? It would be hard (I take it) to describe the joy of that
occurrence: joy in the rout, joy in the pursuit, joy in the slaughter
of their enemies; and in what language shall I describe the exultation
of these warriors at their feats of arms? With what assumption they
bind on their brows the glittering wreath of glory;[13] with what
mirth and jollity congratulate themselves on having raised their city
to newer heights of fame. Each several citizen claims to have shared
in the plan of the campaign,[14] and to have slain the largest number.
Indeed it would be hard to find where false embellishment will not
creep in,[15] the number stated to be the slain exceeding that of
those that actually perished. So truly glorious a thing it seems to
them to have won a great victory.[16]

[10] Lit. "and further, wars there are, waged against forcibly-
subjected populations whether by free states"--e.g. of Olynthus,
"Hell." V. ii. 23, or Athens against her "subject allies" during
the Pel. war--"or by despotic rules"--Jason of Pherae ("Hell."
VI.) Al. "wars waged by free states against free states, and wars
waged by tyrants against enslaved peoples."