Plutarch · a new plain-English translation from the original language
In the magnitude of their benefactions to the Greeks, it is not fair to compare Philopoemen with Titus, nor indeed very many men better than Philopoemen. For the Greeks' wars were fought against Greeks, whereas his, though he was not a Greek, were fought on behalf of the Greeks; and at the very time when Philopoemen, unable to defend his own countrymen who were under attack, sailed away to Crete, Titus, having conquered Philip in the heart of Greece, was setting free both the nations and all the cities. And if one were to examine the battles of each,
Philopoemen killed more Greeks while general of the Achaeans than Titus killed Macedonians while helping the Greeks. Their faults, moreover, arose from different sources: the one from love of honor, the other from love of contention; and toward anger the one was quick to move, the other hard to appease. For Titus preserved for Philip the dignity of his kingship and dealt reasonably with the Aetolians, whereas Philopoemen, out of anger, deprived his own homeland of the tribute-paying towns around it.
Further, the one was always steadfast toward those he had benefited, while the other was ready to dissolve a favor out of temper. For though he had earlier been a benefactor of the Lacedaemonians, he later tore down their walls, cut away their territory, and in the end overturned and destroyed their constitution. He seems, too, to have thrown away his very life to anger and contentiousness, pressing on toward Messene not at the right moment but more hastily than was proper — not, like Titus, conducting every campaign by calculation and with a view to safety.
But in the multitude of wars and trophies, Philopoemen's experience is more solidly established: for Titus's affair with Philip was decided in two contests, while Philopoemen, having succeeded in countless battles, left no room for fortune to dispute with skill. Further, the one made use of Rome's power while it was still at its peak, while the other rose to eminence when Greece was already in decline, so that he gained the reputation that his achievement was his own, while the other's success was shared with his people: the one commanded good men already made, while the other, in commanding, made men good.
And indeed, that his struggles were against Greeks was, for this man, not a fortunate circumstance, yet it furnished strong proof of his valor; for among men otherwise alike, victory goes to the one who excels in valor. And in truth, warring against the most warlike of the Greeks, the Cretans and the Lacedaemonians, he overcame the craftiest by cunning and the bravest by daring.
Beyond this, Titus won using resources already established, employing the arms and formations he inherited; but Philopoemen himself introduced and transformed the order of things in this regard, so that the most decisive means of victory, which had not existed before him, came into being through him and served him. In deeds by his own hand, then, Philopoemen accomplished many great things, the other none at all; indeed one of the Aetolians, Archedemus, mocked him, saying that while he himself, sword drawn, ran at a charge against the combatants and the massed Macedonians, Titus stood still with his hands raised palm-upward to the sky, praying.
And further, it fell to Titus, both as commander and as ambassador, to accomplish everything honorable, but Philopoemen showed himself no less capable, nor less active, as a private citizen than as a general, in the service of the Achaeans. For as a private citizen he drove Nabis out of Messene and freed the Messenians; and as a private citizen he shut Diophanes the general and Titus himself out of Sparta when they were advancing, and saved the Lacedaemonians.
Having by nature such a gift for leadership, he knew how to govern not merely according to the laws, but even to rule over the laws themselves for the common advantage, not needing to receive command as a gift from those he ruled, but making use of them, whenever occasion called, considering as their general the man who thought on their behalf rather than the one they themselves had chosen.
Noble, then, were Titus's dealings with the Greeks, gentle and humane; but nobler still were Philopoemen's dealings with the Romans, firm and devoted to liberty; for it is easier to grant favors to those in need than to give pain by resisting the more powerful. Since, then, when examined this way the difference is hard to discern, consider whether, awarding to the Greek the crown of skill in war and generalship, and to the Roman that of justice and kindness, we shall not seem to judge amiss.