I. It would be impossible to compare Philopœmen, or many better men
than Philopœmen, with Titus, in respect of the benefits which each
conferred upon the Greeks. Philopœmen and the others were all Greeks,
who fought with other Greeks, while Titus was not a Greek, and yet
fought on behalf of the Greeks. When Philopœmen despaired of helping
his hard-pressed follow citizens and sailed to Crete, Titus was
gaining a victory in the centre of Greece, in consequence of which he
bestowed freedom on Philip himself, and on all the nations and cities
which had been subject to him. If one carefully examines the battles
fought by each commander, it will appear that Philopœmen killed more
Greeks when he was general of the Achæans than Titus killed
Macedonians when he was fighting for Greece. The faults of the one
arose from ambition, those of the other from party spirit; the latter
was easily moved to anger, the former hard to appease. Titus preserved
for Philip the semblance of royal power, and treated even the Ætolians
with indulgence, while Philopœmen in his anger detached the
confederation of villages from his native city. Moreover, Titus was
always a friend to those whom he had once befriended, while
Philopœmen's kindly feelings were easily overruled by passion. Indeed
he appears to have sacrificed his life to rage and bitter personal
rancour, by invading Messenia before anything was ready, without
showing any of the prudent caution of Titus in military matters.
II. The fame of Philopœmen's skill as a general, however, rests on a
more secure basis, the number of his battles and trophies of victory.
Flamininus decided his campaign against Philip by two battles, but
Philopœmen fought innumerable battles, and never let it be supposed
that he owed more to fortune than to skill. Moreover, Titus had at his
disposal the resources of Rome, then in the zenith of her strength,
while Philopœmen had the glory of performing his greatest exploits at
a time when Greece was in her decadence, so that his work was all his
own, while the glory of the Roman must be shared with his countrymen.
The one was the leader of good soldiers, but the other by his
leadership made good soldiers. That his conflicts were all against
Greeks was unfortunate, but gives a strong proof of his powers; for
among men who are alike in other respects, victory must be won by
sheer courage. He fought the most warlike of the Greeks, the Cretans
and the Lacedæmonians, the first of whom are the most deeply versed in
stratagem, while the latter are most renowned for bravery, and
overcame them both. In addition to this it must be remembered that
Titus found his materials ready for use, as he received the arms and
disciplined troops of his predecessor, while Philopœmen himself
introduced a new method of armament and discipline; so that the one
was obliged to discover the means of obtaining victory, while the
other had only to use them. Philopœmen too did many great feats in
hand to hand fight, whereas Titus did nothing, for which one of the
Ætolians, Archedemus, jeered at him, saying that while he himself was
running sword in hand to attack the Macedonian phalanx, Titus was
standing still and raising his hands to heaven in prayer to the gods.
III. Nevertheless Titus both as a general and an ambassador always met
with complete success, while Philopœmen acted as vigorously and
successfully on behalf of the Achæans when in a private station as
when he was their general. It was as a private citizen that he drove
Nabis out of Messene and liberated the Messenians, and as a private
citizen he shut the gates of Sparta against Diophanes the Achæan
general and Titus himself when they were on their march against it,
and so saved the Lacedæmonians from destruction. Thus, having the true
spirit of a commander, he knew when to obey and when to override the
laws, acting according to them when it was fitting to do so, but
holding him to be the true general who upheld the spirit of the laws
without being fettered by them. The kindly treatment of the Greeks by
Titus was honourable to him, but the sturdy spirit of independence
which Philopœmen showed towards the Romans was still more honourable,
because it is much easier to grant a request to suppliants, than to
irritate those who are more powerful by opposing them. Since, then, it
is difficult to distinguish their respective merits by comparison, let
us see whether we shall not decide best between them by assigning the
palm for military and soldier-like qualities to Greek, and to the
Roman that for justice and goodness of heart.