onged to Scipio,
and that Flamininus had no right to interfere between them.]

COMPARISON OF PHILOPOEMEN AND TITUS.

I. It would be impossible to compare Philopoemen, or many better men
than Philopoemen, with Titus, in respect of the benefits which each
conferred upon the Greeks. Philopoemen 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 Philopoemen 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 Philopoemen killed more
Greeks when he was general of the Achaeans 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 AEtolians
with indulgence, while Philopoemen 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
Philopoemen'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 Philopoemen'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
Philopoemen fought innumerable 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 Philopoemen 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 i