Plutarch · a new plain-English translation from the original language
As for the deeds concerning Marcellus and Pelopidas that we judged worth recording, these are they. But as to the similarities in their natures and characters, which were, so to speak, evenly matched with one another—for both men were brave, hard-working, high-spirited, and great-souled—this alone would seem to make a difference: that Marcellus, in many cities that fell into his hands, carried out slaughters, whereas Epaminondas and Pelopidas, though they conquered, never killed anyone, nor enslaved any city. Indeed it is said that the Thebans would not have treated even the Orchomenians so, had those two been present.
In their actions, Marcellus's deeds against the Celts are wonderful and great: he drove back so great a multitude of horse and foot together with the few horsemen about him—a feat not recorded as having been easily accomplished by any other general—and he slew the leader of the enemy. In just this manner Pelopidas stumbled when he rushed upon the same kind of exploit, being struck down first by the tyrant and suffering before he could act.
Nevertheless, to these deeds one may compare Leuctra and Tegyra, the most illustrious and greatest of contests; but a secretly accomplished action with a small band we have nothing of Marcellus's to set against what Pelopidas did in his return from exile and the destruction of the tyrants at Thebes—rather that deed seems by far to hold first place among all things done in darkness and by deception.
Hannibal pressed upon the Romans as a fearsome and terrible thing, just as the Lacedaemonians then pressed upon the Thebans; and that these yielded to Pelopidas at Tegyra and at Leuctra is certain, but Hannibal, as Polybius and his circle say, Marcellus never defeated even once—rather the man seems to have remained undefeated until Scipio.
We, however, trust Livy, Caesar, Nepos, and, among the Greek historians, King Juba, that certain defeats and routs of Hannibal's men were brought about by Marcellus; yet these produced no great turn of the scale, but it seems there was some sham fall on the Libyan's part in those encounters.
This indeed was justly and fittingly admired, coming after so many routs of armies and slaughters of generals and the confusion of the whole Roman power together, when men were setting themselves in opposition through renewed courage: for after so long a time of great fear and consternation, he again cast into the army zeal and rivalry against the enemy,
and this very thing—not readily yielding victory, but disputing and contending for honor—was raised up and emboldened by one man, Marcellus. For men accustomed by their misfortunes to be content if in flight they escaped Hannibal, he taught to be ashamed of being saved through defeat, to feel shame at yielding even a little, and to grieve at not conquering.
Since, then, Pelopidas was never defeated in any battle he commanded, while Marcellus won the most victories of any Roman of his time, it might seem that the one who is hard to defeat is made equal to the one who is undefeated, by the sheer number of his successes. And indeed, the one took Syracuse, while the other failed to take Lacedaemon. Yet I count it a weightier achievement to have marched up to Sparta's very gates and been, of all men, the very first to ford the Eurotas amid warfare,
unless, by Zeus, someone will say that this deed belongs rather to Epaminondas than to Pelopidas, just as Leuctra does, whereas the glory of what Marcellus accomplished is shared with no one. For he alone took Syracuse, and he routed the Celts without his co-commander, and against Hannibal, when no one joined with him, but all rather tried to dissuade him, he stood arrayed against him and, changing the very shape of the war, became the first leader to establish the courage to dare.
As for the deaths of these men, I praise neither one, but I am pained and vexed at the strangeness of the mischance; and I marvel that in so many battles as one would grow weary counting, Hannibal was never even wounded, while I admire also Chrysantas in the Education of Cyrus, who, having raised his sword and being about to strike an enemy, when the trumpet sounded the recall, let the man go, very gently and orderly withdrawing.
Nevertheless, what makes Pelopidas pardonable is that his spirit, heated by the moment of battle, carried him nobly forward to vengeance: for it is best that a general survive while conquering, "but if he must die, let him end his life in virtue," as Euripides says. For thus the death of the one who dies becomes not a passive suffering but an action,
and besides Pelopidas's passion, the very consummation of victory, seen in the tyrant's fall, drew on his impulse not altogether without reason: for it is hard, when another's exploit holds so fair and brilliant a subject, to let it slip. But Marcellus, when no great necessity was pressing, nor any enthusiasm present of the sort that often drives reasoning out amid dangers, thrust himself thoughtlessly into peril and fell, not the fall of a general, but of some scout or spy,
laying down five consulships and three triumphs and spoils and trophies from kings before the Spaniards and Numidians of the Carthaginians who were about to die before him. So that they themselves might well have resented their own success, that a man who was best of the Romans in valor, greatest in power, and most brilliant in glory should have been squandered among the scouts of the Fregellans.
One must not think these things an accusation of the men, but rather a kind of indignation and free speech on behalf of those very men, addressed to them, and on behalf of their courage, into which they poured out their other virtues, sparing neither their lives nor their souls, as though these belonged to themselves rather than to their fatherlands, friends, and allies who perished with them.
After death, Pelopidas had for his burial those allies for whom he died, while Marcellus had his enemies, by whom he died. That former thing is enviable and blessed, but the latter is greater and better—hatred grieving admiration of virtue is a greater thing than goodwill returning gratitude. For in the one case the noble deed has honor alone as its reward, in the other, the useful and the advantageous are loved more than the virtue itself.