We may complain then, he says. Still Aebutius is not touched by this interdict. How so?
 Because violence was not offered to Caecina. Can it be said in this cause, where there were
 arms, where there was a multitude of men collected, where there were men carefully equipped and
 placed in appointed places with swords, where there were threats, dangers, and terrors of death,
 that there was no violence? 
 “No one,” says he, “was slain, or even wounded.” What are you saying? When we are speaking of
 a dispute about a right of possession, and about an action at law between private individuals,
 will you say that no violence was done, if actual murder and slaughter did not take place? I say
 that mighty armies have often been put to flight and routed by the mere terror and charge of the
 enemy, not only without the death of any one, but even without one single person being wounded.
 In truth, O judges, that is not the only violence which reaches our persons and our lives, but
 that is even a much greater one, which, by threatening us with the danger of death, often drives
 our minds, agitated by fear as they are, from their steady position and condition. Therefore,
 wounded men often, when they are enfeebled in body, still do not succumb as to their courage,
 and do not leave the place which they have determined to defend; but others, though unwounded,
 are driven away: so that there is no doubt but that the violence which is done to a man whose
 mind is frightened, is much greater than that which is done to him whose body is wounded.
 And if we say that those armies have been routed by force,
 which have fled through fear, and often from only some slight suspicion of danger; and if we
 have both seen and heard of troops being put to flight, not only by the dash of shield against
 shield, nor by bodily conflict, nor by blows interchanged hand to hand, nor by the showering of
 missile weapons from a distance, but often by the mere shout of the soldiers, by their warlike
 array, and the sight of the hostile standards; shall that, which is called violence in war, not
 be called violence in peace? And shall that which is thought vigorous conduct in military
 affairs, be considered gentle in transactions of civil law? And shall that which has its
 influence on armed battalions, not appear to move a body of men in the garb of peace? And shall
 a wound of the body be a greater proof of that violence which we complain of, than alarm of
 mind? And shall we inquire strictly what wounds were inflicted, when it is notorious that people
 were put to the rout? For your own witness stated this, that
 when our party were flying through fear, he had pointed them out the way by which they might
 escape. Does no violence appear to have been offered to men who not only fled, but who even
 asked of a stranger which way they could flee with safety? Why, then, did they flee? Out of
 fear. What did they fear? Violence, of course. Can you then deny the first facts when you admit
 the last? You confess, that they fled because they were frightened; you say the cause of their
 flight was that which we all understand,—namely, arms, a multitude of men, an attack and onset
 of armed men. When all this is admitted to have taken place, shall violence be denied to have
 been offered? But all this is common enough, and there is plenty of precedent for it in transactions of our
 ancestors' time; that, when people came to assert their rights by force, if either party beheld
 armed men ever so far off, they should at once depart, having called on their companions to bear
 witness to the fact; and then they had a right to proceed to trial, and to require the
 securities to be given according to the following formula:—“If no violence had been offered
 contrary to the edict of the praetor.” Is it so? Is it enough for proving violence to have been
 offered, to know that there are armed men; but not enough for proof, to fall into their hands?
 Shall the sight of armed men avail to prove violence, and shall their onset and attack not
 avail? Shall a man who departs quietly find it more easy to prove that violence has been offered
 to him, than a man who has fled from it?