On Anger, Book 1, Section 11 — In Plain English

Seneca — The Senator

"But," someone argues, "we need anger against our enemies." Actually, that's when we need it least. Our attacks should be organized and controlled, not wild and random. What destroys barbarians — who are physically stronger than us and can handle more hardship — if not anger, which ruins everything it touches? Gladiators protect themselves through skill. But when they get angry, they leave themselves open to get hurt. Besides, what's the point of anger when reason can do the same job? Do you think a hunter gets angry at the animals he kills? He fights them when they attack and chases them when they run. He does all of this through reason, not anger.

Seneca — The Senator Original

"But," argues he, "against our enemies anger is necessary." In no case is it less necessary; since our attacks ought not to be disorderly, but regulated and under control. What, indeed, is it except anger, so ruinous to itself, that overthrows barbarians, who have so much more bodily strength than we, and are so much better able to endure fatigue? Gladiators, too, protect themselves by skill, but expose themselves to wounds when they are angry. Moreover, of what use is anger, when the same end can be arrived at by reason? Do you suppose that a hunter is angry with the beasts he kills? Yet he meets them when they attack him, and follows them when they flee from him, all of which is managed by reason without anger.