[149] “For what reason,” I should be inclined to say, “my good friend, do you not think fit to assign these more than others to the conflict of the war, who have secured for themselves wives and houses and vineyards and other possessions in lavish abundance? They will bear very lightly, be they ever so heavy, the dangers incurred to keep them safe; while those who have none of the ties mentioned, having nothing vital at stake, will for the most part be sluggish and slack.
[150] Or, again, is the fact that they have derived no enjoyment from any of their acquisitions a good reason for depriving them of the possibility of doing so in the future? For what advantage from their possessions remains to the vanquished?
“Nay but,” I think you urge, “they will not be prisoners.”
On the contrary, they will at once incur the fate of non-combatants. For enemies vigorously carrying on operations of war are quite sure to become masters of men sitting at home at their ease, not merely without bloodshed but without a struggle.
[151] “Nay,” you urge again, “the large forces on their side will gladly undertake to fight for these as well.”
In the first place, I reply, it is monstrous to rely on the efforts or good fortune of others, especially when there is the menace hanging over both individual citizens and the city itself of spoliation and deportation and enslavement, and that when they are able to do their part in bearing the burdens of war and are hindered from doing so neither by illness nor by old age nor by any other misfortune. It behoves these people to snatch up their weapons and taking their place in the front ranks to hold their shields over their comrades fighting with a courage that courts danger.