First, then, as for the greatness of the benefits which Titus
conferred on Greece, neither Philopoemen, nor many braver men than
he, can make good the parallel. They were Greeks fighting against
Greeks, but Titus, a stranger to Greece, fought for her. And at the
very time when Philopoemen went over into Crete, destitute of means
to succor his besieged countrymen, Titus, by a defeat given to Philip
in the heart of Greece, set them and their cities free. Again, if we
examine the battles they fought, Philopoemen, whilst he was the
Achaeans' general, slew more Greeks than Titus, in aiding the Greeks,
slew Macedonians. As to their failings, ambition was Titus's weak
side, and obstinacy Philopoemen's; in the former, anger was easily
kindled, in the latter, it was as hardly quenched. Titus reserved to
Philip the royal dignity; he pardoned the Aetolians, and stood their
friend; but Philopoemen, exasperated against his country, deprived it
of its supremacy over the adjacent villages. Titus was ever constant
to those he had once befriended, the other, upon any offense, as
prone to cancel kindnesses. He who had once been a benefactor to the
Lacedaemonians, afterwards laid their walls level with the ground,
wasted their country, and in the end changed and destroyed the whole
frame of their government. He seems, in truth, to have prodigalled
away his own life, through passion and perverseness; for he fell upon
the Messenians, not with that conduct and caution that characterized
the movements of Titus, but with unnecessary and unreasonable haste.
The many battles he fought, and the many trophies he won, may make
us ascribe to Philopoemen the more thorough knowledge of war. Titus
decided the matter betwixt Philip and himself in two engagements; but
Philopoemen came off victorious in ten thousand encounters, to all
which fortune had scarcely any presence, so much were they owing to
his skill. Besides, Titus got his renown, assisted by the power of a
flourishing Rome; the other flourished under a declined Greece, so
that his successes may be accounted his own; in Titus's glory Rome
claims a share. The one had brave men under him, the other made his
brave, by being over them. And though Philopoemen was unfortunate
certainly, in always being opposed to his countrymen, yet this
misfortune is at the same time a proof of his merit. Where the
circumstances are the same, superior success can only be ascribed to
superior merit. And he had, indeed, to do with the two most warlike
nations of all Greece, the Cretans on the one hand, and the
Lacedaemonians on the other, and he mastered the craftiest of them by
art and the bravest of them by valor. It may also be said that
Titus, having his men armed and disciplined to his hand, had in a
manner his victories made for him; whereas Philopoemen was forced to
introduce a discipline and tactics of his own, and to new-mold and
model his soldiers; so that what is of greatest import towards
insuring a victory was in his case his own creation, while the other
had it ready provided for his benefit. Philopoemen effected many
gallant things with his own hand, but Titus none; so much so that one
Archedemus, an Aetolian, made it a jest against him that while he,
the Aetolian, was running with his drawn sword, where he saw the
Macedonians drawn up closest and fighting hardest, Titus was standing
still, and with hands stretched out to heaven, praying to the gods
for aid.
It is true, Titus acquitted himself admirably, both as a governor,
and as an ambassador; but Philopoemen was no less serviceable and
useful to the Achaeans in the capacity of a private man, than in that
of a commander. He was a private citizen when he restored the
Messenians to their liberty, and delivered their city from Nabis; he
was also a private citizen when he rescued the Lacedaemonians, and
shut the gates of Sparta against the General Diophanes, and Titus.
He had a nature so truly formed for command that he could govern even
the laws themselves for the public good; he did not need to wait for
the formality of being elected into command by the governed, but
employed their service, if occasion required, at his own discretion;
judging that he who understood their real interests, was more truly
their supreme magistrate, than he whom they had elected to the
office. The equity, clemency, and humanity of Titus towards the
Greeks, display a great and generous nature; but the actions of
Philopoemen, full of courage, and forward to assert his country's
liberty against the Romans, have something yet greater and nobler in
them. For it is not as hard a task to gratify the indigent and
distressed, as to bear up against, and to dare to incur the anger of
the powerful. To conclude, since it does not appear to be easy, by
any review or discussion, to establish the true difference of their
merits, and decide to which a preference is due, will it be an unfair
award in the case, if we let the Greek bear away the crown for
military conduct and warlike skill, and the Roman for justice and
clemency?