Plutarch's Lives
Translated by Aubrey Stewart and George Long
Volume II
COMPARISON OF PHILOPŒMEN AND TITUS
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 in[Pg 178]numerable 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.