[1] But surely the multitude of his wars and trophies put the military experience of Philopoemen on a firmer basis. For the campaign of Titus against Philip was decided by two conflicts, whereas Philopoemen was successful in countless battles and left no room for the claim that his victories were due to fortune rather than to skill. And besides, Titus, in his quest of fame, availed himself of the culminating power of Rome; whereas Philopoemen flourished when Greece was already in declension. Therefore the success of Philopoemen was his own work, while that of Titus was the result of a community of effort; for the latter was commander of good soldiers, while the former, as commander, had to make his soldiers good.
[2] And surely the fact that Philopoemen’s conflicts were with Greeks furnished a proof of his valour which was convincing even though unfortunate: for where other things are equal, they prevail who surpass in valour. And so it was that although he carried on war with the most warlike of the Greeks, namely, the Cretans and Lacedaemonians, he surpassed the first in wiles, though they were most crafty, and the second in daring, though they were most brave.
[3]
In addition to this it may be said that Titus won his victories by using what lay ready to his hand, since he availed himself of styles of armour and formation which had come down to him, whereas Philopoemen won his successes by making contributions and changes of his own in these matters, so that in the one case what was most essential for victory did not exist and had to be discovered, while in the other it lay ready for service. In the way of personal prowess, moreover, Philopoemen performed much that was great, but Titus nothing at all; nay, an Aetolian named Archedemus mocked at him because, when he himself had drawn his sword and was running at full speed against the Macedonians who were holding together and fighting, Titus was standing with his hands stretched up towards heaven and praying for help.
In addition to this it may be said that Titus won his victories by using what lay ready to his hand, since he availed himself of styles of armour and formation which had come down to him, whereas Philopoemen won his successes by making contributions and changes of his own in these matters, so that in the one case what was most essential for victory did not exist and had to be discovered, while in the other it lay ready for service. In the way of personal prowess, moreover, Philopoemen performed much that was great, but Titus nothing at all; nay, an Aetolian named Archedemus mocked at him because, when he himself had drawn his sword and was running at full speed against the Macedonians who were holding together and fighting, Titus was standing with his hands stretched up towards heaven and praying for help.
Comparison of Philopoemen and Titus. Plutarch. Bernadotte Perrin (Translator). Cambridge, MA. 1921.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by Tufts University.