first them, as for the greatness of the benefits which titus conferredon greece, neither philopoemen, nor many braver men than he, can makegood the parallel. they were greeks fighting against greeks, but titus,a stranger to greece, fought for her. and at the very time when philopoemenwent over into crete, destitute of means to succour his besieged countrymen,titus, by a defeat given to philip in the heart of greece, set themand their cities free. again, if we examine the battles they fought,philopoemen, whilst he was the achaeans' general, slew more greeksthan titus, in aiding the greeks, slew macedonians. as to their failings,ambition was titus's weak side, and obstinacy philopoemen's in theformer, anger was easily kindled； in the latter, it was as hardlyquenched. titus reserved to philip the royal dignity； he pardonedthe aetolians, and stood their friend； but philopoemen, exasperatedagainst his country, deprived it of its supremacy over the adjacentvillages. titus was ever constant to those he had once befriended；the other, upon any offence, as prone to cancel kindnesses. he whohad once been a benefactor to the lacedaemonians, afterwards laidtheir walls level with the ground, wasted their country, and in theend changed and destroyed the whole frame of their government. heseems, in truth, to have prodigalled away his own life, through passionand perverseness； for he fell upon the messenians, not with that conductand caution that characterized the movements of titus, but with unnecessaryand unreasonable haste.
the many battles he fought, and the many trophies he won, may makeus ascribe to philopoemen the more thorough knowledge of war. titusdecided the matter betwixt philip and himself in two engagements；but philopoemen came off victorious in ten thousand encounters, toall which fortune had scarcely any pretence, so much were they owingto his skill. besides, titus got his renown, assisted by the powerof a flourishing rome； the other flourished under a declined greece,so that his successes may be accounted his own； in titus's glory romeclaims a share. the one had brave men under him, the other made hisbrave, by being over them. and though philopoemen was unfortunate,certainly, in always being opposed to his countrymen, yet this misfortuneis at the same time a proof of his merit. where the circumstancesare the same, superior success can only be ascribed to superior merit.and he had, indeed, to do with the two most warlike nations of allgreece, the cretans on the one hand, and the lacedaemonians on theother, and he mastered the craftiest of them by art and the bravestof them by valour. it may also be said that titus, having his menarmed and disciplined to his hand, had in a manner his victories madefor him； whereas philopoemen was forced to introduce a disciplineand tactics of his own, and to new-mould and model his soldiers； sothat what is of greatest import towards insuring a victory was inhis case his own creation, while the other had it ready provided forhis benefit. philopoemen effected many gallant things with his ownhand, but titus none； so much so that one archedemus, an aetolian,made it a jest against him that while he, the aetolian, was runningwith his drawn sword, where he saw the macedonians drawn up closestand fighting hardest, titus was standing still, and with hands stretchedout to heaven, praying to the gods for aid.
it is true titus acquitted himself admirably, both as a governor andas an ambassador； but philopoemen was no less serviceable and usefulto the achaeans in the capacity of a private man than in that of acommander. he was a private citizen when he restored the messeniansto their liberty, and delivered their city from nabis； he was alsoa private citizen when he rescued the lacedaemonians, and shut thegates of sparta against the general diophanes and titus. he had anature so truly formed for command that he could govern even the lawsthemselves for the public good； he did not need to wait for the formalityof being elected into command by the governed, but employed theirservice, if occasion required, at his own discretion； judging thathe who understood their real interests was more truly their suprememagistrate, than he whom they had elected to the office. the equity,clemency, and humanity of titus towards the greeks display a greatand generous nature； but the actions of philopoemen, full of courage,and forward to assert his country's liberty against the romans, havesomething yet greater and nobler in them. for it is not as hard atask to gratify the indigent and distressed, as to bear up againstand to dare to incur the anger of the powerful. to conclude, sinceit does not appear to be easy, by any review or discussion, to establishthe true difference of their merits and decide to which a preferenceis due, will it be an unfair award in the case, if we let the greekbear away the crown for military conduct and warlike skill, and theroman for justice and clemency？
the end