In this respect Crassus cannot be compared with Nikias, not though he
had carried the frontier of the Roman empire as far as the Caspian and
the Indian seas.

III. Yet a statesman, in a country which appreciates his merits,
ought not when at the height of his power to make way for worthless
men, and place in office those who have no claim to it, as Nikias did
when he laid down his own office of commander-in-chief and gave it to
Kleon, a man who possessed no qualification whatever for the post
except his brazen effrontery. Neither can I praise Crassus for having
so rashly and hurriedly brought the war with Spartacus to a crisis,
although he was actuated by an honourable ambition in fearing that
Pompeius would arrive and take from him the glory of having completed
the war, as Mummius took from Marcellus the glory of winning Corinth.
But on the other hand the conduct of Nikias was altogether monstrous
and inexcusable. He did not give up his honourable post to his enemy
at a time when there was hope of success and little peril. He saw that
great danger was likely to be incurred by the general in command at
Pylus, and yet he was content to place himself in safety, and let the
state run the risk of ruin, by entrusting an incompetent person with
the sole management of affairs. Yet Themistokles, rather than allow an
ignorant commander to mismanage the war against Persia, bribed him to
lay down his office. So also Cato at a most dangerous crisis became a
candidate for the office of tribune of the people in order to serve
his country. But Nikias, reserving himself to play the general at the
expense of the village of Minoa, the island of Kythera, and the
miserable inhabitants of Melos,[100] when it came to fighting the
Lacedæmonians eagerly stripped off his general's cloak, and entrusted
to an inexperienced and reckless man like Kleon, the conduct of an
enterprise involving the safety of a large Athenian fleet and army,