| 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 pretence, 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 valour. 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-mould 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? |
Return to the Table of Contents
Return to List of Authors and Books
