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 in other respects, victory must be won by sheer courage.  He fought the most warlike of the Greeks, the Cretans and the Lacedaemonians, the first of whom are the most deeply versed in stratagem, while the latter are most renowned for bravery, and overcame them both.  In addition to this it must be remembered that Titus found his materials ready for use, as he received the arms and disciplined troops of his predecessor, while Philopoemen himself introduced a new method of armament and discipline; so that the one was obliged to discover the means of obtaining victory, while the other had only to use them.  Philopoemen too did many great feats in hand to hand fight, whereas Titus did nothing, for which one of the AEtolians, Archedemus, jeered at him, saying that while he himself was running sword in hand to attack the Macedonian phalanx, Titus was standing still and raising his hands to heaven in prayer to the gods.