"The Achaeans Philopoemen and Aristaenus were alike in having neither a single nature nor a [single] political standpoint. For indeed Philopoemen was well-suited for the field of war both in body and in spirit, but the other [was suited for] the politics and logistics of deliberations. This is how the opinion of each concerning politics differed from the other. Since the supremacy of the Romans was already completely obvious in Greek affairs in the time [of the wars] against Philip and Antiochus, Aristaenus[1] conducted his political affairs so that he would be ready to be of complete service to the Romans, sometimes even [acting] before they gave the order. However, he tried to seem to follow the laws and to attract such a reputation [for doing so], yielding whenever any of those [laws] clearly contradicted the written [instructions] of the Romans. Philopoemen, on the other hand, agreed with and helped implement without hesitation all requests that were in accordance with the laws and with the treaty; but he was not able willingly to comply with such [requests] as were beyond [the laws and treaty arrangements], but said that it was necessary for the officials to argue their point of view and first and put it as a request afterwards; if, though, they could not persuade [the Romans] even by this, [he said that] they should yield in the end, as if invoking witnesses,[2] and then execute the order."